G/AG/W/241  
 
15 September 2023  
(23-6178) Page: 1/59 
Committee on Agriculture  Original: English  
 
POINTS RAISED BY MEMBERS UNDER THE REVIEW PROCESS  
COMPILATION OF QUESTIONS FOR THE MEETING ON 27 -28 SEPTEMBER 20231  
The present document compiles questions received by the Secretariat by the deadline of 
13 September 2023 as specified in WTO/AIR/AG/69 . 
 
_______________  
 
  
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.  Questions cosponsored via the AG -
IMS as of 1 p.m. on 15 September  are already reflected accordingly in this document .  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 2 - 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO T HE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 .... 7 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  ................................ ................................ . 7 
1.1   Australia's  sustainability loans (SIM 839)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.1.1   Question by India (AG-IMS ID 106129)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.2   Australia's changes to the Farm Household Allowance Scheme (SIM 840) ..........................  7 
1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106130)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.3   Australia's Package Assisting Small Exporters (PASE) (SIM 841)  ................................ ....... 7 
1.3.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106131)  ................................ ................................ ...... 7 
1.4   Brazil's Plano Safra programme  (SIM 842)  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
1.4.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106068)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.4.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106069)  ................................ .......................  8 
1.4.3   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106070)  ................................ .......................  9 
1.5   Brazil's new programme to  restore pastureland  (SIM 843)  ................................ ...............  9 
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106021)  ................................ ...........  9 
1.6   Brazil's tariff increase on dairy products  (SIM 844)  ................................ .........................  9 
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106020)  ................................ ...........  9 
1.7   Burkina Faso's domestic support  (SIM 845)  ................................ ................................ ... 9 
1.7.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106039)  ................................ ...........  9 
1.8   Cameroon's  import  substitution policy  (SIM 846)  ................................ ..........................  10 
1.8.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106040)  ................................ ..........  10 
1.9   Canada's Advanced Payments Program  (SIM 847)  ................................ .........................  10 
1.9.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106136)  ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
1.10   Canada – Country -specific allocation for beef and veal TRQ  (SIM 848)  ............................  10 
1.10.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106009)  ................................ ................................ .. 10 
1.11   France's support to wine producer  (SIM 849)  ................................ ..............................  10 
1.11.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106077)  ................................ ................................ .. 10 
1.12   India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme (SIM 850)  ................................ .... 11 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106024)  ..........................  11 
1.13   India's value of production data  (SIM 851)  ................................ ................................ . 11 
1.13.1    Questi on by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Australia  
(AG-IMS ID 106031)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  11 
1.14   India's state government support  (SIM 852)  ................................ ...............................  11 
1.14.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Australia, Thailand  
(AG-IMS ID 106033)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  11 
1.15   India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision  (SIM 853) ...................  12 
1.15.1    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Japan, Australia, 
Thailand (AG -IMS ID 106029)  ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
1.15.2    Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Australia  
(AG-IMS ID  106030)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  12 
1.16   Malaysia's export restriction measure on chickens  (SIM 854)  ................................ ........  12 G/AG/W/241  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1.16.1    Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 106013)  ................................ ....................  12 
1.17   Mexico's domestic support programmes  (SIM 855)  ................................ ......................  12 
1.17.1    Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106044)  ..........................  12 
1.18   New Zealand's  On Farm Support Scheme (SIM 856)  ................................ ....................  13 
1.18.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106151)  ................................ ................................ ... 13 
1.19   Pakistan's freight subsidy for wheat (SIM 857)  ................................ ............................  13 
1.19.1    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada (AG -IMS ID 106046)  ..................  13 
1.20   Philippine's  inspection and testing of agricultural products  (SIM 858)  .............................  14 
1.20.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106052)  ................................ ........  14 
1.21   Philippines' SSG trigger price for chicken  (SIM 859)  ................................ .....................  14 
1.21.1    Question by United States of Ame rica (AG -IMS ID 106048)  ................................ ........  14 
1.22   Russian Federation's export ban of rice (SIM 860)  ................................ .......................  14 
1.22.1    Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 106014)  ................................ ..........................  14 
1.23   Tanzania's export restriction on maize (SIM 861)  ................................ ........................  15 
1.23.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, European Union  
(AG-IMS ID 106015)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  15 
1.24   Thailand's corn farmer income guarantee scheme (SIM 862)  ................................ .........  15 
1.24.1    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106083)  ................................ ....................  15 
1.25   United Arab Emirates - Rice export ban  (SIM 863)  ................................ .......................  15 
1.25.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 106061)  ................  15 
1.25.2    Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 106066)  ................................ ..............................  15 
1.26   UK's MA:1 notifications  (SIM 864)  ................................ ................................ .............  16 
1.26.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106058)  ................................ ........  16 
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  ................................ .........  16 
1.27   Argentina's export restrictions (SIM 710)  ................................ ................................ ... 16 
1.27.1    Questi on by United Kingdom, Canada, European Union, Japan (AG -IMS ID 106006)  ...... 16 
1.28   Canada's Dairy Policies (SIM 594)  ................................ ................................ .............  16 
1.28.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106134)  ................................ ................................ ... 16 
1.28.2    Question b y India (AG -IMS ID 106135)  ................................ ................................ ... 17 
1.29   Canada's Special Milk Class Scheme (SIM 26)  ................................ .............................  17 
1.29.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 106071)  ................................ ........................  17 
1.30   Canada's Review of the TRQ System (SIM 536)  ................................ ...........................  17 
1.30.1    Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, European Union,  
Paraguay, China (AG -IMS ID 106007)  ................................ ................................ .................  17 
1.31   China's support to beef cattle sector (SIM 818)  ................................ ...........................  18 
1.31.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106074)  ................................ ................................  18 
1.32   China's environmental programmes (SIM 821)  ................................ ............................  18 
1.32.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106075)  ................................ ................................  18 
1.33   China's grain subsidies (SIM 773)  ................................ ................................ .............  18 
1.33.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106073)  ................................ ................................  18 
1.34   EU's Deforestation and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558) ................................ ...... 19 G/AG/W/241  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.34.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106010)  ................................ ................................ .. 19 
1.34.2    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106140)  ................................ ................................ ... 19 
1.35   India's Tran sport and Marketing Assistance (TMA) (SIM 515)  ................................ ........  19 
1.35.1    Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106028)  ..........................  19 
1.36   India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  ................................ ...................  20 
1.36.1    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106081)  ................................ ................................  20 
1.36.2    Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106082)  ................................ ................................  21 
1.36.3    Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106078)  ................................ ....................  21 
1.36.4    Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia  
(AG-IMS ID 106001)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  21 
1.36.5    Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, United Kingdom, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 106003)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  22 
1.36.6    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 106079)  ................................ ........................  22 
1.36.7    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, Brazil,  
European Union, Japan (AG -IMS ID 106011) ................................ ................................ ........  22 
1.36.8    Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106022)  .... 23 
1.36.9    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada, Japan,  
Australia (AG -IMS ID 106026)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  23 
1.36.10    Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, Australia  
(AG-IMS ID 106004)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  24 
1.37   India's export restrictions on wheat and rice (SIM 306)  ................................ ................  24 
1.37.1    Question by United States of America, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, Japan,  
Australia (AG -IMS ID 106037)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  24 
1.37.2    Question by United Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, European Union,  
Ukraine, Japan (AG -IMS ID 106008)  ................................ ................................ ...................  24 
1.38   India's export restrictions on onions (SIM 652)  ................................ ...........................  24 
1.38.1    Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 106080)  ................................ ........................  24 
1.38.2    Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, Australia  
(AG-IMS ID 106005)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  24 
1.39   Japan – Japan -US Trade Agreement (SIM 564)  ................................ ...........................  25 
1.39.1    Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106012, 106017)  ................................ ......................  25 
1.40   Nigeria – Foreign currency exchange restrictions  (SIM 566)  ................................ ..........  25 
1.40.1    Question by United States of Ameri ca (AG -IMS ID 106045)  ................................ ........  25 
1.41   Philippines – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC ) Permits (SIM 655)  ..... 25 
1.41.1    Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106049)  ................................ ........  25 
1.41.2    Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106051)  ..........................  25 
1.42   Philippines' implementation of tariff quotas (SIM 17)  ................................ ....................  26 
1.42.1    Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106050)  ..........................  26 
1.43   Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  ................................ .............................  26 
1.43.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106158)  ................................ ................................ ... 26 
1.44   Thailand's palm oil price guarantee scheme (SIM 832)  ................................ .................  26 
1.44.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106159)  ................................ ................................ ... 26 
1.45   Türkiye's in creased import tariffs (SIM 833)  ................................ ...............................  27 G/AG/W/241  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.45.1    Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada  (AG-IMS ID 106055)  ..................  27 
1.46   Türkiye's freight support (SIM 730)  ................................ ................................ ...........  27 
1.46.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106054)  ..............  27 
1.47   Türkiye's  export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  ................................ ..... 28 
1.47.1    Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia, United Kingdom  
(AG-IMS ID 106056)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  28 
1.48   United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions (SIM 810)  ................................ ...... 28 
1.48.1    Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 106164)  ................................ ................  28 
1.49   UK's SSG entitlements (SIM 761)  ................................ ................................ ..............  28 
1.49.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106161)  ................................ ................................ ... 28 
1.50   U.S. Agricultural Marketing Service programme (SIM 716)  ................................ ............  29 
1.50.1    Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106165)  ................................ ................................ ... 29 
2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ....................  29 
2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  .....................  29 
2.1.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/149, G/AG/N/CAN/150, G/AG/N/CAN/157)  ................................ . 29 
2.1.2   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/84, G/AG/N/CRI/90)  ................................ ............................  29 
2.1.3   Norway (G/AG/N/NOR/125)  ................................ ................................ ....................  30 
2.1.4   United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/21)  ................................ ................................ ...........  31 
2.1.5   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/168)  ................................ .............................  31 
2.2   SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARD S (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  ................................ ...... 31 
2.2.1   European Union (G/ AG/N/EU/86)  ................................ ................................ .............  31 
2.3   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ .......................  32 
2.3.1   Bangladesh (G/AG/N/BGD/5, G/AG/N/BGD/6, G/AG/N/BGD/7, G/AG/N/BGD/8, 
G/AG/N/BGD/9, G/AG/N/BGD/10, G/AG/N/BGD/11 ) ................................ .............................  32 
2.3.2   Burkina Faso (G/AG/N/BFA/20, G/AG/N/BFA/21, G/AG/N/BFA/22)  ................................  32 
2.3.3   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/158, G/AG/N/CAN/159)  ................................ ...........................  33 
2.3.4   Chile (G/AG/N/CHL/75, G/AG/N/CHL/76)  ................................ ................................ .. 34 
2.3.5   Costa Rica (G/AG/N/CRI/88)  ................................ ................................ ...................  34 
2.3.6   Japan (G/AG/N/JPN/282)  ................................ ................................ ........................  35 
2.3.7   Kazakhstan (G/AG/N/KAZ/21, G/AG/N/KAZ/22, G/AG/N/KAZ/23)  ................................ . 35 
2.3.8   New Zealand (G/AG/N/NZL/138)  ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
2.3.9   Paraguay (G/AG/N/PRY/36)  ................................ ................................ .....................  35 
2.3.10    Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/85)  ................................ ................................ ....................  36 
2.3.11    United Kingdom (G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1, G/AG/N/GBR/20)  ................................ ........  36 
2.3.12    United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1, G/AG/N/USA/169, 
G/AG/N/USA/157/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 36 
2.4   NEW OR MODIFIED DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES (TABLE DS:2)  ................................ . 41 
2.4.1   Canada (G/AG/N/CAN/160)  ................................ ................................ .....................  41 
2.4.2   European  Union (G/AG/N/EU/87)  ................................ ................................ .............  42 
2.4.3   European  Union (G/AG/N/EU/88)  ................................ ................................ .............  42 
2.4.4   United States of America (G/AG/N/USA/170)  ................................ .............................  46 G/AG/W/241  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.5   EXPORT SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  ................................ . 47 
2.5.1   Thailand (G/AG/N/THA/94, G/AG/N/THA/95, G/AG/N/THA/110) ................................ .... 47 
2.6   EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS (TABLE ER:1)  ................................ ............  48 
2.6.1   Malaysia (G/AG/N/MYS/56)  ................................ ................................ .....................  48 
3   OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ........................  48 
3.1   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  48 
3.2   India ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  49 
3.3   Kazakhstan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  49 
3.4   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  49 
3.5   Türkiye  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  49 
3.6   Uruguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  49 
4   DEFERRED REPLIES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 
4.1   MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 ............  50 
4.1.1   Angola's import policies  (SIM 660)  ................................ ................................ ...........  50 
4.1.2   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom,  
United States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  ..............  50 
4.1.3   Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States - Import duties in  
excess of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  ................................ ..........  51 
4.1.4   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricult ural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  ................................ ......................  51 
4.1.5   China's food aid (SIM 823)  ................................ ................................ ......................  52 
4.1.6   Côte d'Ivoire - Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  ................................ ........................  52 
4.1.7   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight transport (SIM 778)  ....... 52 
4.1.8   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  ................  53 
4.2   POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  ..............................  54 
4.2.1   IMPORTS UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  ..................  54 
4.2.2   DOMESTIC SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  ................................ ....................  54 
5   EXPORT COMPETITION  ................................ ................................ ..............................  57 
5.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  57 
5.2   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  58 
5.3   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  58 
5.4   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  58 
5.5   Norway  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  58 
5.6   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ...........................  59 
 
  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1  MATTERS RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
NEW SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM)  
1.1  Australia's  sustainability loans  (SIM 839)  
1.1.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106129 ) 
India notes that Australia has started a new scheme to provide 'sustainability loans' up to 
AUD 1.3 million to individual primary producers operati ng in Queensland, under the aegis of the 
Queensland Rural and Industrial Development Authority  (QRIDA) 
(https://www.qrida.qld.gov.au/program/sustainability -
loan?gclid=Cj0KCQjw0bunBhD9ARIsAAZl0E2BkyJXqFu5bWNi7aJSBHi_E_iQDpbifmO2gay_DPFB1IO
SqkrCewAaAqqjEALw_wcB ). India also notes that the total budget of the program is AUD  120 million.  
 
With regard to this new scheme, India has the following questions:  
a. What is the average  landholding size for farmers operating in Queensland?  
b. What is the total number of benefic iaries who have availed this scheme?  
c. When does Australia plan to notify this scheme by filing a DS:2 notification?  
1.2  Australia's changes to the Farm Household Allowance Scheme  (SIM 840)  
1.2.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106130 ) 
India notes that the Australian Government has announced certain changes for providing additional 
benefits to the recipients of the Farm Household Allowance (FHA) Scheme as part of its latest budget 
for 2023 -2024 (https://www.agriculture.gov.au/agriculture -land/farm -food-
drought/drought/ass istance/farm -household -allowance ).  
The program was last notified by Australia under Table DS: 9 as non -exempt direct payments in its 
latest DS:1 Notification (FY 2018 -2019). With regard to this particular scheme, India has the 
following questions:  
a. What was the total number of beneficiaries under this scheme in years 2019 -2020, 
2020-2021, and 2021 -2022? 
b. What has been the total expenditure under the Farm Household Allowance scheme during 
the same years?  
c. The budget ha s announced increases in (i) the fortnightly allowance for beneficiaries under 
the scheme to AUD 40, (ii) the maximum rate of rent assistance by 15 %, and (iii)  energy 
relief payments from July 2023. What is the projected expenditure for the year  2023-2024 
under the said program in light of these new modifications to the scheme?  
d. It is noted that the FHA is now also going to support beneficiaries with energy relief 
payments from July 2023. What is the amount allocated under the FHA for supporting 
these energy relief payments?  
e. When does Australia plan to file its outstanding DS:1 notifications for the years 2019 -2020, 
2020-2021, 2021 -2022, and 2022 -2023? 
1.3  Australia's Package Assisting Small Exporters (PASE)  (SIM 841)  
1.3.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106131 ) 
India notes, according to Australia's latest DS:1 notification (FY 2018 -2019), that it was providing 
support under a scheme P ackage Assisting Small Exporters (PASE). Australia has also mentioned in G/AG/W/241  
 
- 8 - 
 
  its notification for FY 2018 -2019 that the program had been extended till 2021 -2022. With regard 
to this scheme India has the following questions:  
a. Has the scheme been phased out or is it still in operation?  
b. What was the total number of beneficiaries under the scheme in FY 2019 -2020, 
FY 2020-2021, and FY 2021 -2022? Also please provide total expenditure under the said 
scheme during these years.  
c. Is there any specific eligibility criter ia under this scheme to limit it to small exporters only?  
d. India also wishes to know how the program operates in supporting market access for the 
small exporters.  
India notes that the PASE program was used for 58 projects to assist Australian exporters in a  
number of Industries ( https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity -trade/export/from -
australia/package -assisting -small-exporters/pase -project -updates ; 
https://www.agriculture.gov.au/biosecurity -trade/export/from -austral ia/package -assisting -small -
exporters ).  
e. In this regard, India seeks to know the breakdown of expenditure on projects under Dairy 
Australia, Avocados  Australia, Australian Table Grape Association, and Grain Trade 
Australia . 
1.4  Brazil's Plano Safra programme  (SIM 842)  
1.4.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106068 ) 
On 27 June a support programme for agriculture Plano Safra 2023/ 2024 was officially announced by 
President Lula. It h as the largest volume of credit in history with RS 364.22 billion, an increase of 
27% compared to the financial volume of the 2022/ 2023 plan.  
Neither the current Plano Safra nor its previous editions appear in Brazil's DS:2 notifications 
submitted to date.  
a. When will Brazil provide a DS:2 notification covering Plano Safra 2023/ 2024 as well as its 
previous editions?  
b. How is the Plano Safra and its components being notified under the DS:1 notifications?  
1.4.2   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106069 ) 
The Plano Safra programme is mainly oriented to support the financing of agriculture (access to 
credit amounting to R$ 272.12 billion o r +26.4% compared to the 2022/ 2023 plan). Broken down 
into a dozen instruments or sub -programs, it allows farmers to access favourable interest rates, 
ranging between 7% and 12.5%, while the market rates to which companies borrow from all sectors 
are on av erage 23.8%."  
No reference to the relevant elements of the Plano Safra can be found in the Brazilian reply to the 
Export Competition Questionnaire.  
Can Brazil explain how the relevant components of the Plano Safra relate to the Nairobi Decision 
on Export C ompetition?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.4.3   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106070 ) 
Brazil – Plano Safra – Local content  
Access to favourable interest rates under Plano Safra is conditional upon the use of  Brazilian 
materials.  
Can Brazil explain how this condition complies with paragraph 4 of Article III of GATT 1994 in the 
light of paragraph 1 (a) of the Annex to the TRIMS agreement?  
1.5  Brazil's new programme to  restore pastureland  (SIM 843)  
1.5.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106021 ) 
Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture recently announced a new program with private and international 
funding of up to $120 billion to restore 40 million hectares of pastureland in ten years and double 
Brazil's food production.  It is reported that a key feature of the program, according to the Ministry 
of Agriculture, will be reduced interest rates for producers undergoing conversion of the 
land. Further, media reports cite environmental and social gains accruing from this program.   
a. Please provide additio nal information regarding this program.  
b. Please describe if and how environmental and social gains accruing from this program will 
be measured.  
1.6  Brazil's tariff increase on dairy products  (SIM 844)  
1.6.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106020 ) 
On 15 August 2023, Brazil's Executive Management Committee (Gecex) of the Foreign Trade 
Chamber (Camex) approved an increase in  tariffs on imports of dairy products from countries outside 
of Mercosur ( Deliberações da 206ª Reunião do Comitê -Executivo de Gestão ). The rate increase from 
12.8% to 18 % was approved for 12 months and covers processed cheeses, butter, and butter oil. 
Gecex also decided to cancel 29 dairy p roducts exemptions that were in force ( Resolução Gecex 
nº 272/2021 ), a decision of the previous government that unilaterally reduced the Common External 
Tariff by 10 %, through Gecex Resolution No. 353, of 2022 . The Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture 
Secretary Perosa is quoted in the media that "These are measures that encourage the milk sector in 
Brazil."    
a. Please explain the purpose of these increases of tariffs.  
b. Please also explain  how Brazil expects these tariffs to affect food prices in Brazil.  
1.7  Burkina Faso's domestic support  (SIM 845)  
1.7.1   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106039 ) 
In G/AG/N/BFA/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21 , and G/AG/N/BFA/22 , Burkina Faso notified that it provided no 
domestic support for the period 2019 through 2022.  However, it appears that Burkina Faso may 
have provided vari ous forms of domestic support during this time period, which may fall within 
various WTO categories of support including Green and Amber Boxes.  For example, official Burkina 
Faso Government data indicates that there was a fixed farm gate price for cotton as well as 
subsidized prices for fertilizer for cotton during 2019/ 2020, 2020/ 2021, 2021/ 2022, and 2022/ 2023. 
Another example is the National Rice Development Strategy, which includes among other things, 
government funded research and extension for the rice sector.  
a. Please describe the government's role in setting prices for cotton and fertilizer in Burkina 
Faso during the time period covered by G/AG/N/BFA/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21 , and 
G/AG/N/BFA/22 . G/AG/W/241  
 
- 10 - 
 
  b. Please provide additional details regarding the N ational Rice Development Strategy and 
the government's role in the strategy.  
c. Please explain why such measures were not notified, and confirm whether any other 
domestic support measures were provided from 2019 through 2022.  
1.8  Cameroon's  import  substitution po licy (SIM 846)  
1.8.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106040 ) 
In February 2023, the Ministry of Economy, Planning and Regional Development (MINEPAT) released 
the MINEPAT report ( MINEPAT Economic Rep orts - MINEPAT Cameroun ) which describes the 
implementation of an import substitution policy focused on the agricultural industry.   
a. Please explain how this measure will not restrict imports.  
b. Please explain how this measure is compliant with commitments under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (Market Access), Article III:4 GATT (National Treatment), and 
other relevant WTO commitments.  
1.9  Canada's Advanced Payments Program  (SIM 847)  
1.9.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 106136 ) 
India notes that the 'interest free limit' under the Advanced Payments program has significantly 
increased in recen t years. Canada justifies this increase by stating "t he change will help agricultural 
producers with significant financial challenges, including high input costs and rising interest rates." 
(Also see https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/programs/advance -payments ). In this light, India has 
the following questions:  
a. Please provide data demonstrating the rate of increasing input costs and interest rates 
from 2020 to 2023. Also provide details about the specific inputs which have seen an 
increase in prices.  
b. What is the total number of beneficiaries under the scheme?  
c. What is the expenditure under the scheme in providing loans to sheep and beef producers 
in 202 1 and 2022?  
d. For 2020, Canada has notified a total expenditure of CAD 26 million under the program. 
India wishes to know the quantum of expenditure under the program in 2021 and 2022.  
1.10  Canada – Country -specific allocation for beef and veal TRQ  (SIM 848)  
1.10.1   Ques tion by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106009 ) 
Regarding TRQ CANQ004 for Beef and Veal, which amounts to roughly 76k tonnes , Brazil is 
interested in knowing more about possible country allocation. According to MA:1 notification 
(G/AG/N/CAN/19 ) in 1998, Canada sta tes that "there is a country reserve of 29,600 tonnes for New 
Zealand and a country reserve of 35,000 tonnes for Australia". In Canada 's Uruguay Round schedule, 
the only observation regarding the TRQ is that is not available for the U nited States  and Mexic o. 
Could Canada clarify whether this TRQ has been modified to only partially " erga omnes "? 
1.11  France's support to wine producer  (SIM 849)  
1.11.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106077 ) 
According to information publicly available, the French Government announced spending of up to  
EUR 200 million to destroy excess stocks of wine and support producers, amid negative economic 
indicators in the  sector. Consumption is falling, while production in the E uropean Union  is rising G/AG/W/241  
 
- 11 - 
 
  year-by-year. The French support would aim at controlling prices domestically, but it has natural 
international impact in light of France´s participation in the global wine m arket.   
In this sense, Brazil asks the EU to confirm the information above and clarify the following:  
a. What criteria will be used to purchase the surplus stock of wine?  
b. What will be the purchase price for the surplus stock of wine? Will the price be the sam e 
for all producers?  
c. How will the selling price of alcohol be calculated?  
d. Will resources be made available for winegrowers to switch to other crops through existing 
program mes? If not, will new program mes be created? Will there be a direct transfer of 
funds? 
e. How will these measures be notified to the WTO?  
f. Does the EU intend to reduce the support provided to wine to prevent the formation of 
dispensable surplus stocks?  
1.12  India's rice sale under the Open Market Sale Scheme  (SIM 850) 
1.12.1   Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106024 ) 
The Indian Food Secretary Sanjeev Chopra told media "There has been a sharp increase in prices of 
wheat and rice recently… The government has decided to offload 50 lakh tonnes (5 million ton nes) 
wheat and 25 lakh tonnes  (2.5 million tonnes ) rice under the Open Market Sale Scheme."  (For 
reference, see: https://www.firstpost.com/india/government -to-sell-additional -5-million -tonnes -of-
wheat -2-5-million -tonnes -of-rice-in-open-market -to-contain -price-rise-12977942.html .) Further it 
is noted that the reserve price f or rice released under open market sales was reduced and the Food 
Secretary told media "The cost on account of reduction in the reserve price will be borne from the 
Price Stabilization Fund maintained by the Department of Consumer Affairs" . (For reference,  see: 
https://www.livemint.com/news/india/govt -cuts-rice-price-under -open-market -sales-to-29-a-kg-
11691583391535.html .) 
a. Please confirm whether India sells foodgrains, including rice, at prices below costs under 
the Open Market Sale Scheme.  
b. Please clarify what costs are being borne by the Price Stabilization Fund.  
1.13  India's value of production data  (SIM 851) 
1.13.1   Question  by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Australia (AG -IMS 
ID 106031 ) 
In AG -IMS ID 105010 , value of production dat a was requested for maize, barley, millet, sorghum, 
ahrar/tur, gram, urad, lentils, and rapeseed/mustard.   
Please provide the value of production for these products.  
1.14  India's state government support  (SIM 852) 
1.14.1   Question  by United States of America, Canada, P araguay, Australia , Thailand  (AG-
IMS ID 106033 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 105040 , India only confirmed that Supporting Tables DS:1, DS:2, 
and DS:9 include expenditures f rom central and state governments, but did not provide a breakdown 
of the share of expenditures from the central and state governments.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 12 - 
 
  a. Please provide a breakdown of central government and state government expenditures, 
where relevant in G/AG/N/IND/29 . 
b. Please confirm where the product specific seed subsidy for wheat, referenced in AG -IMS 
ID 105040 , is notified in G/AG/N/IND/29 . 
1.15  India's annex to DS notification pursuant to the Bali PSH Decision  (SIM 853) 
1.15.1   Question by United States of America, Brazil, Canada, Paraguay, Japan, Australia , 
Thailand  (AG-IMS ID 106029 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 105038 , India states it was not able at the time to provide details with 
regards to what the notified value under Annex 2, paragraph 3 includes and excludes as compared 
to "Total Food Subsidy" in the Government of India's Expenditure Budget for 2020 -2021 through 
2023-2024 or why the values for "Total Food Subsidy" were significantly larger than what was 
notified under Annex 2,  paragraph 3.   
a. Is India in a position to provide the requested information in parts (a) and (b) of AG -IMS 
ID 105038 ? 
b. Please indicate the data source and met hodology for notified value provided by India for 
"public stockholding for food security" in its domestic support notifications.  
1.15.2   Question  by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Australia (AG -IMS 
ID 106030 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 105043 , India states that all paddy and wheat stocks procured by NAFED 
at the Minimum Support Price under welfare schemes are deposited in the Food Corporation of India 
and are not util ized by NAFED for any domestic or international trade.  However, NAFED's Annual 
Report 2021 -2022 does not provide any indication of any paddy or wheat procurement done on a 
commercial basis and only provides details of procurement done on behalf of the Food  Corporation 
of India.  The NAFED website specifically indicates that foodgrain procurement was done on behalf of 
the Food Corporation of India and states the NAFED Annual Report provides the current/updated 
details regarding procurement.  
Please provide data (and the source) for 2017/ 2018 through 2021/ 2022 of the quantities of paddy 
and wheat procured by NAFED both on behalf of FCI and those purchased on a commercial basis.  
1.16  Malaysia's export restriction measure on chickens  (SIM  854) 
1.16.1   Question by United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 106013 ) 
The United Kingdom would like to thank Malaysia for submission of G/AG/N/MYS/56 , notifying its 
export restriction measure on live day -old chick broilers. We strongly encourage other Members 
implementing export restrictions to follow Malaysia's good practice, to improve transparency on 
these measures at the Committee on Agricultu re.  
The United Kingdom welcomes the clarity that Malaysia has provided on the product coverage and 
duration of the measure. In addition, we would welcome clarity on the nature of the restriction and 
would be interested to understand whether Malaysia have considered alternative approaches to 
address the critical shortage?   
1.17  Mexico's domestic  support programmes  (SIM 855) 
1.17.1   Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106044 ) 
In G/AG/N/MEX/56 , Mexico notified "direct payment per tonne" for various commodities including 
maize (corn).  In addition, in response to AG -IMS ID 91159 , Mexico stated that "The support 
guarantees the sale price of part of the crops produced by small scale producers of maize, beans, 
bread wheat, rice and milk, whether through a direct purchase by SEGALMEX or by covering the G/AG/W/241  
 
- 13 - 
 
  differential between the commercial price paid by the processing industry and the guaranteed price 
under the Programme." and  "The maize and beans procured by SEGALMEX at guaranteed prices will 
be used primarily to meet the needs of DICONSA for its supply network in rural areas."   
a. Please confirm whether the "Direct Payment per tonne" refers to the same program 
described in respo nse to AG -IMS ID 91159.  
b. For calendar year 2020, 2021, and 2022, please confirm the quantity of eligible production 
that was procured by SEGALMEX and the quantity of eligible production that received a 
differential payment between the commercial price paid by the processing industry and 
the guaranteed price.  
c. Mexico recently published a federal government program to purchase 1.0 million metric 
tonnes  corn from producers in Sinaloa and a State of Sinaloa program to purchase 
500,000  metric ton nes of corn at 6, 965 pesos per ton (US D 409).  
d. Please confirm whether the eligible production notified by Mexico for "direct payment per 
tonne" includes activities undertaken by state governments.  
e. Please confirm how state government procurements are released.  
f. Further, pres s articles report Mexico's Subsecretary for Agriculture saying that the 
guaranteed price of 6,965 pesos per ton seeks to "break the price link" with international 
market prices and that procurement at guaranteed prices would be expanded to other 
states.   
g. Please explain the objectives of the guaranteed prices and government procurement.  
h. Please explain if the price includes transportation or whether there is additional support 
for other costs associated with the procurement program.  
1.18  New Zealand's  On Farm Supp ort Scheme  (SIM 856) 
1.18.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 106151 ) 
New Zealand provides support to agricultural producers under its On Farm Support Scheme, 
implemented by the Ministry for Primary Industries that states "The service connects farmers and 
growers with extension services, funding and advice that will help in the transition to more 
sustainable practices and in the planning for climate change and adverse weather events".  
(https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/37847 -Where -to-go-for-farmer -suppor t) 
In this context, India seeks the following information:  
a. What is the nature and extent of "funding" provided to agricultural producers covered 
under the scheme.  
b. When was this scheme launched? Whether this scheme has been notified in the Domestic 
Support notificatio ns? If yes, details thereof may be provided.  
c. What has been the expenditure under the head "funding" for the financial years 
2020-2021, 2021 -2022 and 2022 -2023? 
1.19   Pakistan's freight subsidy for wheat  (SIM 857) 
1.19.1   Question  by United States of America, Brazil, Ca nada (AG -IMS ID 106046 ) 
In its 2022 Trade Policy Review (TPR), Pakistan responded as having provided a freight subsidy for 
wheat in 2015 -2016 and 2016 -2017 in order to export surplus stocks of public sector wheat. Pakistan 
further noted in its responses to the TPR that the volume of wheat exported from government G/AG/W/241  
 
- 14 - 
 
  procured wheat stocks in 2015 -2016 and 2016 -2017 was 4,16,650 to nnes and 7,93,676 ton nes, 
respectively.  
However, Pakistan notified that it did not apply export subsidies during the marketing years 
2015/2016 and 2016/2017 in its Table ES:1 notifications G/AG/N/PAK/23  and G/AG/N/PAK/24 .  
a. Please clarify the contradictions in its TPR response and its ES:1 submissions for marketing 
years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017.  
b. Please confirm whether Pakistan will submit revised export subsidy notifications for its 
freight subsidy for wheat  in marketing years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017.  If not, please 
explain why.    
1.20   Philippine's  inspection and testing of agricultural products  (SIM 858) 
1.20.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106052 ) 
In 2020, the Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA) announced the start of construction of a Cold 
Examination Facility for Agriculture (CEFA) in Subic Bay. In July 2023, the DA announced the 
groundbreaking for another CEFA in Bulacan. The DA previously reassured the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture that inspections will be risk -based despite recent statements by DA officials in the media 
about conducting 100 % inspection of conta iners.  
a. Has the DA finalized guidelines or regulations for the inspection and testing of agricultural 
products?  
b. Will the inspections apply to both imported and domestic products?  
c. What steps are the Philippines taking to ensure that imports that have alrea dy been 
inspected, certified by the competent authority at the point of origin, and cleared by the 
Philippine Customs and Quarantine officials at the port of entry will not be unduly impeded 
or undergo a second border inspection at the cold storages.  
1.21  Philippines'  SSG trigger price for chicken  (SIM 859) 
1.21.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106048 ) 
In response to AG -IMS 105054 , the Philippines responded that computation of the SSG trigger price 
for chicken products was based on trade data reported by the Philippine Statistics Authority utilizing 
the 1977 Philippine Statistics Commodity Classification.   
Please provide the data cited and utilized by the Philippines in the computation of the SSG trigger 
price.  
1.22  Russian Federation's export ban of rice  (SIM 860) 
1.22.1   Question by Switzerland (AG -IMS ID 106014 ) 
According to media reports it is understood that the Russian Federation has banned the export of 
rice.  
a. What was the reason for implementing this measure?  
b. Will this measure be lifted on 31 December 2023 as reported?  
c. When d oes the Russian Federation plan to submit the notification to the CoA?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 15 - 
 
  1.23  Tanzania's export restriction on maize  (SIM 861) 
1.23.1   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, European Union (AG -IMS 
ID 106015 ) 
The United Kingdom is aware of media reporting on Tanzania's application of an export restriction 
on maize. To provide clarity to Members, could Tanzania please confirm:  
a. The nature of these measures .  
b. Their intended duration . 
c. What consideration it has given to the effects of this measure on importing M embers' food 
security in accordance with Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture?  
The United Kingdom notes that Tanzania is a net -exporter of maize. We would be interested to 
understand when Tanzania plans to provide an ER:1 Table to the Committee on Agriculture for their 
export restrictions on this specific foodstuff?   
1.24  Thailand's corn farmer income guarantee scheme  (SIM 862) 
1.24.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106083 ) 
Could Thailand provide information on the status of their support measure for corn production in 
form of deficiency payments, known as "Corn farmer income guarantee scheme" in English, running 
from December 2019?  
a. When does this measure expire?  
b. What is th e financial allocation planned for this programme and what was the actual 
spending in the years since 2019.?  
c. How is the "guarantee price" and "average market price " for corn calculated under the 
scheme?  
d. How does Thailand intend to notify this support pr ogramme in their overdue DS:1 
notification covering the period since 2016?  
e. How does Thailand assess the compatibility of this programme with its domestic support 
commitments under Agreement of Agriculture?  
1.25  United Arab Emirates - Rice export ban  (SIM 863) 
1.25.1   Question by United States of America, United Kingdom (AG -IMS ID 106061 ) 
It is understood that the United Arab Emirates Mini stry of Economy banned the export and re -export 
of rice on 28 July 2023.   
a. What was the reason for implementing this measure?  
b. Please confirm when the measure will be lifted and whether an extension will be 
considered.  
1.25.2   Question by Thailand (AG -IMS ID 106066 ) 
According to recent news articles, the United Arab Emirates has applied a ban on th e export and 
re-export of rice since 28 July 2023.  
a. Could the United Arab Emirates provide a copy of or weblink to the legislation or regulation 
implementing this measure with the translation in English?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 16 - 
 
  b. How long does the United Arab Emirates intend for thi s measure to remain in place?  
c. When does the United Arab Emirates plan to notify this measure to the WTO?  
1.26  UK's MA:1 notifications  (SIM 864) 
1.26.1   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106058 ) 
The United States welcomes the United Kingdom's MA:1 notification, G/AG/N/GBR/2 . However, we 
are concerned that the multiple links in this notification lead to webpages that do not directly provide 
the cited information and require the reviewer to spend much time attempting to figure out what 
should be simple information to share.  
Please either provide information required for the Table MA:1 notification in the UK's notifications or 
provide updated hyperlinks so that information cited, such as the conditions for obtaining a license 
and information on quota administration for the specific quota cited, are directly accessible rather 
placing the onus on those reviewing the UK's MA:1 noti fication to find this information.  
SPECIFIC IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS (SIM) RAISED PREVIOUSLY  
1.27  Argentina's  export restrictions (SIM 710)  
1.27.1   Question  by United Kingdom, Canada, European Union, Japan (AG -IMS ID 106006 ) 
The United Kingdom thanks Argentina for its response to AG -IMS ID 105008 . While we acknowledge 
that some information regarding the measure is provided online, we would still request that 
Argentina submit an ER:1 notification in line with WTO obligations. In particular, we would like to 
understand the intended duration of Argentina's export restriction on beef, and the steps Argentina 
is taking to review the effectiveness of the measure, bearing in mind Paragraph 2(a) of Articl e XI of 
GATT 1994 that restrictions should only be temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critical shortages 
of foodstuffs.  
1.28  Canada's Dairy Policies (SIM 594)  
1.28.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 106134 ) 
India thanks Canada for submitting the DS:1 notification for implementation years 2019 and 2020, 
while noting that Canada's support to dairy has increased significantly in 2020 comp ared to 2019, 
and continues to remain beyond the de -minimis limit to the extent of 16.6% of VoP. In light of 
Canada's dairy schemes, India has the following questions:  
a. Support under the Dairy Direct Payment Program increased from CAD 338.6 million 
in 2019 to CAD 459.4 million in 2020. What are the reasons for this increase?  
b. Canada mentioned that the objective of the Dairy Direct Payment Program is to support 
dairy producers as a result of market access commitments made under recent 
international trade agree ments. India wishes to know the methodology used by Canada to 
calculate the impact of market access commitments arising out of recent trade agreements 
on its dairy producers, as it is not clear from Canada's previous responses on the same 
issue including i ts responses to Questions AG -IMS ID s 101014  and 103135 .  
c. In response to Question AG -IMS ID 101014 , Canada had stated that the Dairy Direct 
Payment Program was launc hed to mitigate the impacts of the CETA and the CPTPP. 
In 2023, Canada has announced funds of CAD 1.2 billion over six years to account for the 
impacts of the Canada -United States -Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) under the Dairy Direct 
Payments Program (Source: https://agriculture.canada.ca/en/programs/dairy -direct -
payment  ). India wishes to know if this allocation of CAD 1.2 billion will be in addition  to 
ongoing support for dairy producers to shield them from the effects of CETA and CPTPP.  
d. Further, if the  CAD 1.2 billion expenditure allocated for the Dairy Direct Payments 
encompasses support to Diary Producers as a result of market access commitments m ade G/AG/W/241  
 
- 17 - 
 
  under recent international trade agreements including CETA, CPTPP, and CUSMA, how did 
Canada calculate the amount of expenditure and the timeline of such payments to support 
producers to specifically protect them from the impacts of the CETA, CPTPP and  CUSMA?  
1.28.2   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106135 ) 
Under the Dairy Direct Payment Program, Canada agreed to provide 10 Trans -Pacific countries with 
an additional 3.25% of access to its domestic dairy market as part of the  CPTPP (Source: 
https://www.dpac -atlc.ca/trade/cptpp/  ). Would Canada kindly provide details of actual dairy 
imports under the 3.25 % access guaranteed to its domestic dairy market under the CPTPP for 10 
countries in volume and monetary terms for the years 2020, 2021, and 2022?  
1.29  Canada's Special Milk Class Sch eme (SIM 26)  
1.29.1   Question  by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 106071 ) 
New Zealand thanks Canada for their response to the question AG -IMS ID 103130 . In the answer, 
Canada states that its "exports of dairy products have declined between 2020 and 2021" and cites  
a subset of dairy products, including "skim milk powder, whey products, casein and casein products, 
and products consisting of natural milk constituents (such as MPC70)".   
According to publicly available customs data, Canada's exports of the products listed below (listed 
in order of value exported), all of which fall under Canada's Milk Class Scheme, have effectively 
tripled over the last 10 years (increasing by 199% in quantity and 187% by value) – far exceeding 
exports at any point over the past 30 years. Over the last three years alone (2020 -2022), exports 
have increased by 50% in quantity (from 162,038 tonnes in 2020, to 243,664 tonnes in 2022), and 
67% in value (from USD  501 million in 2020, to USD  838 million in 2022):  
1. Skim Milk Powder Bl ends, HS Code 190190 ; 
2. Milk Peptones and Derivatives (including MPCs >70% / MPIs) HS350400 ; 
3. Skim Milk Powder, HS Code 040210 ; 
4. Milk Protein Concentrates ; 
5. Infant Formula, HS Code 190110 ; 
6. Casein, HS Code 350110 ; 
7. Caseinate, HS Code 350190 ; 
8. Whole Milk Powder, HS Code 040221 ; 
9. Concentrated Milk, 040291 . 
(Please note that the product names have been shorted from their full tariff lines for brevity.)  
Canadian processors are able to access pricing for industrial milk through the Canadian Milk Class 
Scheme in  the manufacture of these products.  
a. Can Canada confirm the increase in exports observed in this data sourced from Statistics 
Canada?  
b. Could Canada please explain what it believes is the reason for the sharp increase in such 
exports?  
c. Some New Zealand dair y exporters have advised that exported Canadian dairy products 
supported through Class 4(a) pricing have begun to impact their own commercial trade in 
a number of markets around the globe. What is Canada's view on this?  
1.30  Canada's Review of the TRQ System (S IM 536)  
1.30.1   Question by United Kingdom, United States of America, European Union, Paraguay, 
China (AG -IMS ID 106007 ) 
In response  to AG -IMS ID s 104002  and 105023  the United Kingdom was disappointed to hear of yet 
further delays to the outcome  of Canada's Comprehensive Review of the Allocation and G/AG/W/241  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Administration of Tariff Rate Quotas (TRQs) for Dairy, Poultry and Egg Products. Can Canada please 
confirm whether the review has now concluded, and if it is not concluded, provide an overview of 
the remaining steps to reach conclusion? When might Canada be in a position to share outcomes 
with Members?   
1.31  China's support to beef cattle sector (SIM 818)  
1.31.1   Question  by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106074 ) 
Canada notes that China has yet to provide its responses to questions regarding China's key support 
measures for its beef/cattle sector (AG -IMS ID 105025 ). Canada looks forward to receiving full 
responses t o each of the questions. In the meantime, further to those questions, Canada would like 
to seek clarification on the following:  
a. Could China elaborate on the considerations which may prevent China from having 
information on key beef/cattle sector domestic support measures it is currently 
implementing?  
b. Could China explain how it can ensure that these various measures for the beef/cattle 
sector at the federal and provincial levels would remain within China's annual domestic 
support commitment over th e implementation period, despite the fact that China appears 
to have limited information on these measures?  
1.32  China's environmental  programmes (SIM 821)  
1.32.1   Question  by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106075 ) 
Canada would like to follow up on China's response to AG -IMS ID s 104054  and ID 10502 7 regarding 
its modified resource retirement program:   
As noted previously, could China submit a DS:2 notification to clarify how "returning cultivated land 
to forests and grazing land to grassland" meets the general cri teria and each policy criteria of 
paragraph 10 (a) through (d) of Annex 2 in accordance with the requirement of Article 18.3 of AoA 
for any new/modified domestic support measure?  
1.33  China's grain subsidies  (SIM 773)  
1.33.1   Question  by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106073 ) 
AG-IMS ID 104105 , 105028  and 105029  
Canada would like to follow up on China's responses to AG -IMS ID s 104105 and 105028 regarding 
its notified Blue Box measures for "rice in husk ( G/AG/N/CHN/66 )" and "corn and soybeans 
(G/AG/N/CHN/67 )." China stated that these measures "limit subsidies" to sown areas in the 2014 
base period for corn and in the 2019 base period for soy and that fo r rice in husk, "subsidized 
quantities" are limited to 85% of the average annual production in the 2016 -2018 base period.  
Canada is of the view that 'subsidy limits' based on fixed areas or yields, or on 85% or less of the 
base production, are but one of t he criteria that has to be met to comply with Article 6.5 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). China has yet to demonstrate how these programs meet the 
"production -limiting" policy requirement contained in Article 6.5 of AoA.  
a. Could China provide informat ion on which mechanisms or policy tools are used to 
effectively limit production under these programmes (e.g., production quotas)?  
b. According to a separate response in AG -IMS ID 105029, China indicated that all entities 
engaged in agricultural production ar e eligible to receive a one -time subsidy payment. 
Could China confirm if eligible corn, soybean, and rice producers under the notified Blue 
Box measures can also receive this one -time subsidy, or any other price/production -
related direct payments?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 19 - 
 
  c. In a con text where these programmes do not appear to contain conditions, mechanisms 
or policy tools that have the effect of limiting the production of these commodities, could 
China give additional consideration to calculating support under these programmes as par t 
of its aggregate measure of support (AMS) calculation, as per the AoA?   
1.34  EU's Deforestation  and Forest Degradation Strategy (SIM 558)  
1.34.1   Question by Brazil (AG -IMS ID 106010 ) 
Regarding E uropean Union' s answer to question AG-IMS ID 105034 , Brazil would like additional 
clarification on the following two points:  
a. To points raised regarding the legal provision for the protection of native vegetation, the 
European Union  replied as follows: "farmers receiving support under the CAP must devote 
at least 4% of their arable land to non -productive areas and features beneficial for 
biodiversity". Brazil, in comparison, establishes as minimum level of protection of native 
vegeta tion percentages from 20% (in the south and southeast of the country) up to 80% 
in the Amazon biome. Given EU 's focus on preserving and increasing forested land 
worldwide, Brazil would like to know what are the EU's plans to increase forested areas in 
European private lands, particularly those which include its main export products?  
b. Regarding financial compensation for the burden of adaptation to the UEDR, within the 
framework of developed countries' commitments to help developing countries transition 
to mo re sustainable production models , the EU replied that "the Commission will develop 
a comprehensive strategic framework for cooperation with third countries (...) The 
"IVCDCI -Global Europe" instrument will provide EUR  1 billion in grants for the period 
2021-2024 to protect, restore and sustainably manage forests in partner countries. (...) 
The NDICI -Global Europe instrument will provide EUR  1 billion in grants for the 
period  2021-2024 to protect, restore and sustainably manage forests in partner countries, 
as well as EUR  2.5 billion in grants for the period 2021 -2024 to support sustainable 
agriculture in partner countries." Even these values seem insufficient in light of the 
magnitude of trade concerned. For instance, agricultural trade between the EU and Bra zil 
alone amounts roughly to the same 3.5 billion dollars a year. Brazil will insist on the 
question of how the EU intends to repair this legislation, or, at a minimum, aim to mitigate 
its more harmful impacts and avoid trade disruption including the exces sive administrative 
burden.  
1.34.2   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 106140 ) 
As per AG -IMS ID 100071 , the E uropean Union  justifies its measure under subparagraphs of the 
GATT Article XX. For a measure to be justified under Article XX, the measure should also satisfy the 
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX i.e., it is not applied in a manner that would constitute "a 
means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions 
prevail" and is not "disguised restriction on international trade".  
Further, the EU deforestation regulation adopts a bench -marking  system, which would categorize  
the exporter countries into high -risk and low -risk based on certain condi tions. This differentiates 
imported products according to the level of risk associated with their country of origin and uses this 
differentiation to identify which operators should be checked for due diligence.  
In this context, how does the EU's measure ju stify the chapeau requirements of Article XX?  
1.35  India's Transport and Marketing  Assistance (TMA) (SIM 515)  
1.35.1   Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106028 ) 
As a follow up to AG ‑IMS IDs 95051  and 93010 , it is noted that India's Department of Commerce 
introduced the 'Transport and  Marketing Assistance (TMA) for Specified Agriculture Products Scheme' 
to provide assistance for the international component of freight costs faced by Indian exporters of 
agriculture products.  The scheme was in effect between 1 March  2019 and 31 March 2021 . However, 
the Department notified a 'Revised TMA for exports after 1 April  2021 to 31 March 2022.  We note G/AG/W/241  
 
- 20 - 
 
  that major changes have been made in the revised TMA Scheme, such as the coverage of dairy 
products, which were not previously covered, and that rate s of assistance were increased, by 50 % 
for exports by sea and by 100 % for exports by air.   
a. Please provide the following data for each year (2019 to present):  
i. the total value of export subsidy provided, including breakouts by agricultural product 
or produc t group (please identify at the HS 6 -digit level),  
ii. the total quantity of subsidized exports, and   
iii. the average subsidy rates.  
b. Please  explain whether the TMA scheme has been extended after 31 March 2022. If the 
TMA is still in effect, please explain whether it will expire on 31 December 2023, in 
accordance with the Nairobi Decision.  
1.36  India's export restriction measures on rice (SIM 767)  
1.36.1   Question  by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106081 ) 
On 20 July 2023, India announced an export ban on non -basmati white rice (Notification No. 20/2023 
of India's Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General for 
Foreign Trade (DGFT) ), which entered into force on the same day. The notice provides an exemption 
for shipments en route, which has been extended for exports up to 30 October 2023 (notification 
No. 29/2023 of India's DGFT).  
India's implementation of this export restriction on  non-basmati rice is the latest addition to a series 
of other export restrictions that India currently maintains on wheat and rice. India has been 
prohibiting or restricting the export of: (1) broken rice since September 2022 (Notification 
No.31/2015 -2020;  DGFT); (2) wheat since May 2022 (Trade Notice No.06/2022 -23; DGFT); and 
(3) wheat flour since July 2022 (Notification No.18/2015 -2020; DGFT).   
As discussed in G/AG/W/234 , India has been maintaining substantial market price support policies 
for wheat and rice. At the same time, India has become the world's largest rice exporter, accounting 
for 40% of global rice export in 2022/2023 (International Food Policy Research Insti tute: 
https://www.ifpri.org/blog/indias -new-ban-rice-exports -potential -threats -global -supply -prices -
and-food-security ). India also became a major wheat exporter, placing among the top global wheat 
exporters, with substantial increases in exports since 2020. In this context, the implementation of 
export restrictions on rice and wheat has major impli cations on global food security, including for 
net-food importing developing countries.  
Several WTO Members have urged India to increase transparency around the implementation of 
these measures (e.g., under AG -IMS ID s 101032 ; 102021 ; 103028  and 104033 ). India has yet to 
notify these measures to this Committee and provide all of the information requested. In 
implementing these measures, India has not provided an advance notice to this Committee.  
a. Could India expand on the conside rations which prevented it from providing this 
Committee with an advance written notice regarding its export prohibitions and restrictions 
for wheat, wheat flour, broken rice and non -basmati white rice?  
b. Could India give more details as to the expected dura tion of its export prohibitions and 
restrictions on wheat, wheat flour, broken rice and non -basmati white rice? Could India 
elaborate on considerations it takes into account in determining the duration and the scope 
of the measure, as well as the metrics u sed to determine when export restrictions should 
be lifted?  
c. When will India notify these export restrictions to the Committee on Agriculture through 
the required Table ER:1 notification?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 21 - 
 
  1.36.2   Question by Canada (AG -IMS ID 106082 ) 
As part of the 20 July 2023 notification implementing an export prohibition on non -basmati white 
rice (Notification No. 20/2023), India also announced that , upon request, India would also allow 
exports of non -basmati white rice, on the basis of a special permission granted to other countries 
for them to 'meet their food security needs.' On 30 August 2023, India issued Notification 
No. 30/2023 (India's DGFT),  which granted exemptions to Bhutan, Mauritius and Singapore to 
import non -basmati white rice (HS code 1006.30.90) from India, in quantities of 79,000  MT, 
14,000  MT and 50,000 MT respectively.  
a. In addition to Bhutan, Mauritius and Singapore, has India granted or is considering 
granting a special permission to exempt other countries from its export ban on non -
basmati white rice? Is so, which countries and for what quantities?  
b. Once a country has requested an exemption from India's export ban on non -basmat i white 
rice, how does India determine which country can benefit from a special 
permission/exemption? How are maximum export quantities determined?   
c. What considerations  or factors does India take into account in examining a country's 
request for an exempti on? Are these considerations or factors available to the public?  
1.36.3   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106078 ) 
On 20 July 20 23, the India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry (MoCI)/Directorate General of 
Foreign Trade issued Notification No. 20/2023 – Amendment in Export Policy of Non -basmati Rice 
under Harmonized System (HS) Code 1006.30.90.   
The Indian Government is banning with immediate effect the export of non -basmati, white  (NBW) 
rice (semi -milled or wholly milled, whether polished or not, glazed: other). India is already effectively 
banning the export of broken rice (HS code 1006.40.00).  
In the beginning of Septe mber, India permitted exports of limited quantities of non -basmati white 
rice to Bhutan, Mauritius and Singapore, according to a notification by Directorate General of Foreign 
Trade. According to sources in India, the country allowed an exemption to a mont h-old ban on export 
of non -basmati white rice to supply the commodity to Singapore in view of the special relationship 
between the two countries.  
a. In this regard, could India explain how they took into account the impact of the ban on 
the food security of t he importing countries?  
b. How India decided on the exemptions granted from the ban?  
c. Considering India's role as an important exporter of rice and their influence on the 
international prices, when India intends to notify the Membership in accordance with 
Article 12 paragraph 2 of the AoA?  
1.36.4   Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia (AG -IMS ID 
106001 ) 
On 20 J uly, the Indian Government announced the amendment of the Export Policy of Non - Basmati 
White Rice to be prohibited. 
(https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1941139#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20ensur
e%20adequate,'Prohibited'%20with%20immediate%20effect ) 
a. Could India explain how it has given due consideration to the  effects of the measure on 
importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 .1(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
b. Could India provide the reason behind why the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made before it ins tituted the export prohibition in accordance G/AG/W/241  
 
- 22 - 
 
  with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  Please indicate when this export 
prohibition will be notified.  
c. Could India explain how the measure meets the conditions required in Article XI of General 
Agreemen t on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the products, ii) 
criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure?  
1.36.5   Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, United 
Kingdom, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106003 ) 
On 25 August, the Indian Government announced the amendment of the Export Policy of Basmati 
rice that the contract value of below USD 1,200 per MT may be kept in abeyance.  
(https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx? PRID=1952629 ) 
a. Could India explain how it has given due consideration to the effects of the measure on 
importing Members' food security, as required in Article 12 .1(a) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture?  
b. Could India provide t he reason behind why the required notification to the Committee on 
Agriculture has not been made before it instituted the export prohibition in accordance 
with Article 12 of the Agreement on Agriculture?  Please indicate when this export 
prohibition will be  notified.  
c. Could India explain how the measure meets the conditions required in Article XI of General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT): namely i) essentiality of the products, 
ii) criticalness of the shortages, and iii) temporality of the measure?  
1.36.6   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 106079 ) 
New Zealand notes that India's Government has expanded its  export restrictive measures on rice 
since the previously held CoA in June, further banning any basmati rice exports that are valued lower 
than $1,200 per tonne. Given that this expands coverage of India's export restrictive measures on 
rice past the prohib ition of non -basmati white rice, announced on 20 July this year.  
a. Could India provide further information on the reasons for the export restrictions on rice?  
b. How long will they be in place and when will they be lifted?  
c. Could India provide clarity on when these measures will be notified  to the CoA?  
d. We note that in clause 2(iv) of a notification regarding this measure, issued by the 
Government of India's Department of Commerce, via the Gazette of India, that Export will 
be allowed on the basis of permission  granted by the Government of India to other 
countries to meet their food security needs and based on the request of their government . 
Could India provide additional insight into what factors are considered when assessing an 
application to be exempted from  the export ban of non -basmati white rice?  
1.36.7   Question by United Kingdom, Canada , United States of America, Brazil, European 
Union, Japan (AG -IMS ID 106011 ) 
The United Kingdom is concerned about the impact of India's export ban on non -basmati white rice, 
introduced on 20 July 2023, on the global market and reporting in the FAO's Rice Price Update 
(August 2023) that the measure raises 'substantial food security concerns for a large swathe of the 
world population, especially those that are most poor'. While we welcome reports that India has 
exempted some consignments of rice already in transit from this measure, we neverth eless echo 
the IMF's calls for India to remove restrictions which 'exacerbate volatility on food prices' and the 
ongoing food security challenges faced by many Members.   
We note the publication of a domestic notification of the measure in the Gazette of In dia but would 
request that, in line with Article 12 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, India provides the required G/AG/W/241  
 
- 23 - 
 
  ER:1 table to the Committee on Agriculture so all Members can access the relevant information in a 
timely manner.  Please could India indica te:  
a. The intended length of the ban, and any procedural steps India has in place consistent 
with Paragraph 2(a) of Article XI of GATT 1994, which specifies that export prohibitions or 
restrictions should be temporarily applied to prevent or relieve critica l shortages of 
foodstuffs?  
b. What consideration has been given to the effects of this measure on importing Members' 
food security?  
c. When it intends to submit the ER:1 notification to this Committee?  
Finally, could India please confirm that rice exports to the  World Food Programme (WFP) are exempt 
from this restriction?   
1.36.8   Question by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia (AG -IMS ID 
106022 ) 
On 20 July 2023, India introduced a new export ban on non -basmati rice with no end date, replacing 
a 20% export duty.  This is in addition to an export ban already in place for broken non -basmati rice.  
The announcement of the ban by the  Government of India states the ban is "to ensure adequate 
availability of non -basmati white rice in the Indian market and to allay the rise in prices in the 
domestic market."  However, it is understood from media reports that India currently has sufficient  
supplies to meet domestic demand.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture in August 2023 estimated 
India's rice production at 134 million ton nes and stocks at 36 million ton nes for 2023/ 2024.  
a. Please describe what quantity of rice India considers to be "adequate availability of 
non-basmati white rice in the Indian market."  
b. What quantity of public stocks does India consider adequate for domestic needs?  
1.36.9   Question by United States  of America, United Kingdom, Brazil, Canada, Japan, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 106026 ) 
On 20 July 2023, India introduced a new export ban on non -basmati rice with no end date, replacing 
a 20% export duty.  According to the Government of India, the ban follows an 11.5 % increase in 
domestic retail rice prices over the previous year.  It is noted that India is the largest global exporter 
of rice, accounting for approximately 40 % of global exports.  In addition, more  than 40 countries are 
reported to depend on India for more over 50 % of their total rice imports, with some exceeding 
80%.   
Following the ban, the IMF predicted that the export ban could lead to global grain prices rising by 
as much as 15 % this year.  Howe ver, rice prices quickly exceeded these predictions.  One month after 
India's export ban, other Asian rice exporters were reported to have rice prices approximately 20 % 
higher since India's ban went into effect.  (For reference, see: 
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/vietnamese -exporters -renegotiate -higher -prices -
rice-after-indian -ban-traders -2023-08-16/.) Similarly, it was reported that rice prices in Kenya, 
which primarily imports rice from India, had increased by 20 % one month after the ban. (For 
reference, see: https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/global -food-security -crossroads -rice-
shortages -surging -prices -102415007 .) Likewise, it was reported in Senegal, which also primarily 
imports rice from India, that consumers were paying as much as 66 % more for rice.  
a. Please describe how India has taken into account "due consideration to the effects of such 
prohibition or restriction on importing Members' food security."  
b. If India is providing any exemptions under this ban, please describe what steps must be 
taken by a trader or government to receive an exemption. Please provide a copy or link 
to where these ru les have been published.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 24 - 
 
  c. Noting that one month after the rice export ban, India imposed export restrictions on onion 
with a specified termination date (31 December 2023), when will this rice export ban be 
lifted?  
1.36.10   Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Uni ted States of America, Australia 
(AG-IMS ID 106004 ) 
On the 25 August, the Indian Government issued the Notification No. 49/ 2023-Customs, to change 
the export policy of par -boiled rice to be charged 20% of export duty.  
a. Could India explain how it has given consideration to the effects of the measure on 
importing Members' food security?  
b. Could India also explain reasons why it cho se export duty as a measure to control exports 
instead of taking quantitative restrictions or prohibitions?  
1.37  India's export restrictions on wheat and rice (SIM 306)  
1.37.1   Question by United  States of America, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Canada, Japan, 
Australia (AG -IMS ID 106037 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 105007  regarding export restrictions on wheat and broken rice, India 
stated in June 2022 the process for consideration of notific ation of these measures was underway.  
Since the last meeting of this Committee, India has introduced new export restriction measures 
without any corresponding notification, while still having not notified those previously introduced.   
What issues have prevented India from providing required notifications in a timely manner?  
1.37.2   Question by United  Kingdom, Canada, United States of America, European Union, 
Ukraine, Japan (AG -IMS ID 106008 ) 
The United Kingdom thanks India for its responses to AG -IMS ID 105007 , reconfirming that the 
process of preparing ER:1 notifications for its export restrictions on wheat and broken rice, imposed 
in May 2022 and September 2022 respectively, was still 'underway.' Three months on, we would 
welcome an update on the intended timelines for the submission of the required ER:1 tables to this 
Committee, given the importance of timely transparency on export restriction measures in the 
context of the ongoing foo d security crisis.  
In particular, it is important that we understand the intended duration of the measures which have 
already been in place for 16 months in the case of wheat, and a year in the case of broken rice. Can 
India elaborate on the procedures it has put in place to  ensure consistency with Paragraph 2(a) of 
Article XI of GATT 1994, to ensure that export restrictions or prohibitions should be temporarily 
applied.  
1.38  India's export  restrictions  on onions (SIM 652)  
1.38.1   Question by New Zealand (AG -IMS ID 106080 ) 
New Zealand understands that India has imposed a significant duty on the export of onions until 
December 2023, and further has accelerate d the government procurement of onions. Can India give 
further insight into the reasons for this export restrictive measure, and provide clarity on when this 
measure will be notified to the Committee? Will India notify their procurement on onion produce to  
the Committee?  
1.38.2   Question by Japan, Switzerland, Canada, United States of America, Australia 
(AG-IMS ID 106005 ) 
On 19 August, the Indian Government issued the Notification No. 48/2023 -Customs, to change the 
export policy of onion to be charged 40% of export duty.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 25 - 
 
  a. Could India explain how it has given consideration to the effects of the measure on 
importing Members' food se curity?  
b. Could India also explain reasons why it chose export duty as a measure to control exports 
instead of taking quantitative restrictions or prohibitions?  
1.39  Japan – Japan -US Trade Agreement (SIM 564)  
1.39.1   Question by Brazil  (AG-IMS ID 106012 , 106017 ) 
Brazil thanks Japan and the U nited States for the coordinated answers towards questions AG -IMS 
IDs 105035  and 105036 . Still on the topic of the US -Japan 2019 bilateral trade agreement, Brazil 
observes that indeed Members can access the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements for 
transparency -related issues on such instruments, but the Committee on Agriculture retains its 
mandate over the implementation of commitments under the Uruguay Round, Ar ticle 18, including 
market access, which seems to be the case of the selected agricultural products.  
In this sense, Brazil would welcome a more substantive reply on the agreement ´s coverage and 
potential MFN principle implications.  
1.40  Nigeria  – Foreign currency exchange restrictions  (SIM 566)  
1.40.1   Question  by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106045 ) 
On 14 June 2023, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) removed the rate cap on the naira at the 
Investors and Exporters ( I&E) window to allow for a free float of the national currency against the 
dollar and other global currencies. However, 43 items, many of which are food and agricultural 
products (e.g., rice, poultry, meat products, and vegetables and vegetable products), remain banned 
from the I&E window.  For many of these agricultural and food products, Nigeria is a net importer.   
a. Please explain CBN's reasoning for continuing to impose foreign currency restrictions by 
keeping a ban on specific items, including agricultura l and food products, despite removing 
the rate cap on the naira at the I&E window for other products;  
b. Please clarify whether the CBN will give advance notice before imposing foreign exchange 
restrictions on additional commodities and if so, how will the no tice be provided?  
1.41  Philippines  – Sanitary and Phytosanitary Import Clearance (SPSIC) Permits (SIM 
655)  
1.41.1   Question by United States of America (AG -IMS ID 106049 ) 
It is noted that applications of SPSICs for whole chickens from the United States are routinely 
rejected without any justification or remarks provided, which have been confirmed by the U.S. 
Department of Agriculture recei ving electronic copies of the rejected SPSIC applications. As of 
June 2023, the Philippines Bureau of Animal Industry website reports zero imports of whole 
chickens.   
Please provide the justification for rejecting SPSICs for whole chickens, while allowing imports of 
chicken cuts and parts.   
1.41.2   Question by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106051 ) 
In response to AG -IMS ID 105015 , the Philippines stated that the C ompetent Authority of the 
Department of Agriculture tracks the status of automatic approvals. According to the Rice 
Tariffication Act, an SPSIC is automatically approved after 7 days. However, in response to AG -IMS 
ID 105015 , the Philippines stated a document verification is done by the Competent Authority upon 
arrival at the port. As of 20 July 2023, the BPI website shows minimal approvals of SPSICs for rice, 
other than SPSICs approved for fancy and specialty rice.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 26 - 
 
  a. Please provide the mechanism or guidelines used by the Philippine Department of 
Agriculture to track automatic approvals.  
b. Please elaborate on the procedure prior to arrival and what documents are needed to clear 
the rice shipmen t through customs.  
1.42  Philippines' implementation of tariff quotas (SIM 17)  
1.42.1   Question  by United States of America, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106050 ) 
We thank the Philippines for its response to AG -IMS ID 105013  regarding the administration of its 
corn TRQ and specifically for referencing the provision allowing  the surrender of unused quota on or 
before the reckoning date to avoid penalties.  We seek clarity regarding the Philippines Department 
of Agriculture's Administrative Order 52, Section I.H.4 (2000), which amended the Rules and 
Regulations for the Impleme ntation of the Agricultural Minimum Access Volume (MAV) to allow 
existing MAV licensees to retain their quota allocations without importing, as long as they buy locally 
produced commodities.  
a. Please explain the rationale for allowing MAV licensees to retain  their quota allocations 
without importing, as long as they buy locally produced commodities.   
b. Does this not prevent other importers from utilizing this MAV volume to purchase corn 
from MFN countries?  
1.43  Thailand's Paddy Pledging Scheme (SIM 313)  
1.43.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106158 ) 
India thanks Thailand for their answers to AG -IMS ID s 103137 , 104101  and 105103 . However, the 
answers provided do not sufficiently aid us in  analysing the WTO compatibility of th e rice policy. 
With Thailand's DS:1  notifications pending for the last five years, India believes the information  
sought here is vital to uphold transparency and determine the WTO consistency  of rice policies.  
a. India observes that over the years Thailand h as implemented  support measures like 
pledging programs and price insurance programs among others  for rice producers. Since 
it is difficult to determine which of these programs  are currently being implemented, India 
requests Thailand to enumerate the name  and the implementation details of all the 
schemes designed to support rice  farmers that are currently in effect.  
b. How does Thailand intend to notify these measures in the DS:1  notification?  
c. For the sake of transparency, India further requests links  to the o fficial websites which 
provide the objectives, working details and  timely updates for these programs.  
1.44  Thailand's palm oil price guarantee scheme (SIM 832)  
1.44.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 106159 ) 
India would like to reiterate the question AG -IMS ID 105101  originally posed in the 105th CoA 
meeting, since no response was received for the same.   
Since Thailand has not provided the DS:1 notification for the years 2017 to 2022, India is compelled 
to refer to the media reports. As per media reports, Thailand's Cabinet approved a 7.66 -billion -baht 
budget for the 2021 -2022 season for palm oil under the state -sponsored price guarantee scheme. 
Under this, the guaranteed price for fresh palm nu ts is set at 4 baht per kilogram, for a limit of 25  rai 
per family.   
In this regard, India would like to know the following:   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 27 - 
 
  a. What are the eligibility criteria prescribed to receive support under the "state -sponsored 
price guarantee scheme" for palm oil fa rmers?  
b. How is the administered price determined?  
c. How many farmers have benefited from this scheme?  
d. How much quantity of palm oil is eligible to be sold to the government, and how is it 
disposed of?  
e. Does Thailand intend to continue supporting the Palm oil f armers under this scheme 
for 2023? If yes, what is the estimated budget allocation?  
f. How will this support be notified in the Domestic Support notification?  
g. Has a similar programme been implemented in the past? If yes, please share the 
programme details.  
1.45  Türkiye's increased import tariffs (SIM 833)  
1.45.1   Question  by United States of America, Brazil, Canada (AG -IMS ID 106055 ) 
We woul d like to follow up on the joint question by Canada and the European Union AG -IMS 
ID 105090  regarding Türkiye's increase in tariffs for certain grains.  
a. Please explain whether foreign purchases by the Turkish Grain Board (TMO) are subject 
to the increased tariffs.  
If TMO is not subject to the 130 % import tariff s: 
b. Please  provide a copy of the decree or relevant authority authorizing TMO's exemption, 
and 
c. Please explain if there are any other entities also exempt from these import duties.  
1.46  Türkiye's freight support (SIM 730)  
1.46.1   Question  by United States of America, Can ada, Australia (AG -IMS ID 106054 ) 
We would like to follow up on AG -IMS IDs 103031  and 100014  regarding Türkiye's reimbursements 
of freight costs for certain agricultural products. Understandi ng that certain freight subsidies may be 
authorized under the 2015 Nairobi Decision on Export Competition, this authorization is set to soon 
expire. We request that Türkiye provide information on its freight reimbursement program so that 
WTO Members may be tter understand its export regime.  We repeat AG -IMS IDs 103031  and 100014  
below:  
a. Please provide a copy of or link to the legal measures authorizing these subsidies, 
specifically a 2016 decision entitled "İhraç Taşımalarına Navlun Desteği Sağlanması 
Hakkında Karar" (Decision on Freight Support for Exports) and subsequent implementing 
measures.  
b. What products are eligibl e to receive freight support?  
c. What are the eligible destinations?  
d. How is the freight support determined? How much may an exporter receive per shipment?  
e. Please confirm the years and periods within each year that Türkiye has authorized such 
freight support s ince 2016, including for 2022 and beyond, if applicable.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 28 - 
 
  f. Please provide quantities of goods receiving support by tariff code (at least the 4 -digit 
level) and the total amount of subsidy and amount of subsidy per tariff code. In addition, 
please identify th e quantities and total amount of subsidy for goods exported to the United 
States, including for dry milled corn products (HS 1104.23).  
g. Noting the apparent contingency on export performance and understanding these 
measures were introduced following the 2015  Nairobi Decision on Export Competition and 
may still be authorized to provide support, please explain how these measures comply 
with Türkiye's export subsidy scheduled commitments and its commitments under the 
Nairobi Decision on Export Competition?  
1.47  Türki ye's export restrictions on agricultural products (SIM 729)  
1.47.1   Question  by United States of America, Canada, Japan, Australia, United Kingdom 
(AG-IMS ID 106056 ) 
We would like to follow up on AG -IMS IDs 101042  and 102029  regarding Türkiye's export 
restrictions. We note that Türkiye announced another export ban on olive oil from  1 August 2023 
until 1 November 2023 and introduced restrictions of chickpea and lentil exports that have not ye t 
been notified to the Committee on Agriculture. We remind Türkiye that as a WTO Member it agreed 
to notify export restrictions imposed on products for which Türkiye is a net -food exporter, even for 
those temporary in nature, to the WTO Committee on Agricu lture.   
a. Please provide a copy of or link to both the authorities given to Turkish Ministry of 
Agriculture and Forestry (MinAF) and the regulations or documentation of MinAF 
implementing these authorities for specific commodities.  
b. When will Türkiye notify i ts export restrictions on olive oil, chickpeas, lentils, or other 
agricultural products to the Committee on Agriculture through the required Table ER:1 
notification?  
1.48  United Kingdom's banking and financial restrictions (SIM 810)  
1.48.1   Question  by Russian Federati on (AG -IMS ID 106164 ) 
The Russian Federation is examining the amendment to General Licence – Transactions related to 
agricu ltural commodities including the provision of insurance and other services 
(INT/2022/2349952) as of 6 June 2023. Could the United Kingdom please confirm that this 
regulation lifts any restrictions imposed earlier on collaboration of Russian exporters and G AFTA?  
1.49  UK's SSG entitlements  (SIM 761)  
1.49.1   Question by India (AG -IMS ID 106161 ) 
India thanks the U nited Kingdom  for their response in AG -IMS ID s 105104  and 102095 . In its 
response, UK stated that the UK is entitled to the relevant SSGs it held when it was a member of 
the EU.  
As per AoA Article 5 clause 1(b), the trigger price for a specific SSG designated product was fixed 
based on the average of 1986 -1988 import price of the  concerned product. Further, the information 
regarding trigger prices is required to be provided through MA:4 notification at any time before 
invoking a price -based measure in the form of an up -front notification.  
In this context, for the sake of transpar ency, India seeks clarification on the trigger prices for 
invoking SSG of the UK's entitled commodities:  
a. Can the U nited Kingdom  confirm whether the trigger prices of the relevant commodities 
would  be based on average c.i.f. unit value during 1986 -88?  
b. Whether the trigger prices would be converted to GBP using the 1986 -88 exchange rate 
or the average exchange rate of a recent period?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 29 - 
 
  1.50  U.S. Agricultural Marketing  Service programme (SIM 716)  
1.50.1   Question  by India (AG -IMS ID 106165 ) 
According to a press release No. 0172.23 dated 23 August 2023 the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's  (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) announced $72. 9 million awarded to 
55 states and territories through the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP), where there are 
efforts to support small and mid -sized producers and ensure access to fresh, locally grown specialty 
crop products.  
(https://www.usda.gov/media/press -releases/2023/08/23/usda -announces -729-million -grant -
funding -awarded -support -us) 
India seeks clarity on the following:  
a. How does the United States define small and mid -sized producers?  
b. How does the US propose to notify this support in the DS:1 notification?  
2  POINTS RAISED  IN CONNECTION WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
2.1  IMPORTS  UNDER TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
2.1.1   Canada  (G/AG/N/CAN/149 , G/AG/N/CAN/150 , G/AG/N/CAN/157 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106168: Question  by India – Tariff quota fill  
India has the following questions with regard to Canada's MA:2 Noti fications for the years 2020 
(G/AG/N/CAN/149 ), 2021 ( G/AG/N/CAN/150 ) and 2022 ( G/AG/N/CAN/157 ): 
a. Canada notifies zero fill rates for TRQ  on fluid milk. In addition to this, footnote (1) in the 
notification states that "CANQ005 - Imports of fluid milk by consumers are not counted. 
By virtue of General Import Permit #1, which regulates the importation of dairy products 
for personal use, any resident of Canada may import fluid milk. The General Import Permit 
may be invoked an unlimited number of times."  In this regard, India would like to 
understand why does Canada have zero fill rates on 'fluid milk'. Is there any mechanism 
to ensure effectiv e segregation between fluid milk imported for personal use and 
commercial purposes?  
b. Why does Canada chronically have low fill rates on Dry Whey, milk protein substances, 
condensed/concentrated milk/cream, and powdered buttermilk? What are the steps being 
taken by Canada to fill these underfilled TRQs?  
c. Imports under the TRQs on Yogurt show a declining trend from 2020 (as per notification 
G/AG/N/CAN/149 ) to 2021 (as per notification G/AG/N/CAN/150 ) including 2022 (as per 
notification number G/AG/N/CAN/157 ). What is the reason for such decrease in imports 
of Yogurt under TRQ?  
2.1.2   Costa Rica ( G/AG/N/CRI/84 , G/AG/N/CRI/90 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106169: Question  by India – Tariff quota fill  
India thanks Costa Rica for their MA:2 notification. India notices a sharp decline in the fill rate for 
CRIQ008 (Buttermilk, curdled milk and cream, yogurt, kephir and other fermented  or acidified milk 
and cream, whether or not concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter or 
flavoured or containing added fruit, nuts or cocoa)  from 37% in 2021( G/AG/N/CRI/84 ) to 0 in 2022 
(G/AG/N/CRI/90 ). Could Costa Rica provi de reasons for such a drop in the fill rate of this tariff quota?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.1.3   Norway ( G/AG/N/NOR/125 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106085 : Question by European Union – Transparency issues  
The European Union would like to thank Norway for submitting  notification G/AG/N/NOR/125  on the 
fill of the tariff rate quotas (MA:2) for  calendar year 2022. The European Union would appreciate 
some clarifications as  regards the following:  
a. NORQ017 "Other  meat and edible meat offal, fresh, chilled or frozen, game quota except  
deer and elk" changed tariff item numbers from "0208" to "020802031109,  02031209, 
02031909, 02032109, 02032209, 02032909, 02081000, 02089030,  02089094, 02089099 
ex" compared to previous MA:2 notifications.  What is the  reason for this change? What is 
the legal basis for this change? Was it  previously notified?  
b. NORQ091 , NORQ092, NORQ093, NOR094  all changed their description from "Apples, pears 
and quinces, fresh (…)" to  just "Fresh apples".  What is the reason for this change? What  
is the legal basis for this  change? Was this change previously notified?  
c. NORQ168 has changed description from  "Swedes, mangolds, fodder roots, hay, lucerne 
(alfalfa), clover , sainfoin,  forage kale, lupines, vetches and similar forage products, 
whether or not  in the form of pellets, other, other, hay" to "Hay", without a change of  the 
tariff item number.  What is the  reason of this change? What is the legal basis of this 
change? Was this  change previously notified?  
d. For NORQ223 we  notice that the following text "and edible offal" was re moved from the  
description of the quota, while the tariff item number seems to enlarge  the scope of the 
quota to include the whole 0202 HS chapter.  Could Norway  clarify why "edible offal" was 
removed from the description? What is the  reason of this change? What is the legal basis 
of this change? Was it  previously notified?  
e. For NORQ224 for  "Meat and edible offal of swine, carcasses and half carcasses, frozen" we  
notice that according  to notification G/MA/TAR/RS/657  on the transposition  from HS 2007 
to 2021, it should include two tariff items. Nevertheless,  notification G/AG/N/NOR/125  
includes only tariff item "02032101".  Furthermore, in the product description "and edible 
offal" was removed  from the description of the quota.  
i. Could Norway  clarify why tariff item "02032109" was not included in the tariff item  
numbers encompassed in the product description?  
ii. Why was the description  of the quota changed? What is the legal basis of this change?  
Was this change previously notified?  
f. NORQ225 "Meat of sheep and goats" had "and edible offal" removed from the description 
of the quota.  
i. What is the  reason of this change? What is the legal basis of this change? Was it  
previously notified?  
ii. Does the product  scope of the TRQ remain the same?  
AG-IMS ID 106084: Question by European Union – Tariff quota fill  
The European Union notes that in Norway's MA:2 notification for Calendar Year 2022 the fill rate for 
butter (NORQ229) has been substantially reduced compared to Calendar Year 2021 as well as 
numerous years before that. What are the reasons for the low fill rate for this product?  
AG-IMS ID 106086: Question  by Paraguay – Tariff quota fill  
We thank Norway for submitting notification G/AG/N/NOR/125  concerning 2022 and request an 
explanation f or the low use of the following tariff quotas:  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 31 - 
 
  - NORQ007: Meat to promotional fairs ; 
- NORQ092: Fresh apples from 1 August to 15 Februar y; 
- NORQ173: Other prepared or preserved meat, of turkeys: turkey roll ; 
- NORQ174: Other prepared or preserved meat, of bovine  animals: corned beef ; 
- NORQ224: Meat of swine, carcasses and half carcasses, froze n; 
- NORQ226: Meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry not cut in pieces, frozen, fowls of the 
specius Gallus domesticus ; 
- NORQ227: Meat and edible offal of poultry, poultry no t cut in pieces, frozen, turkeys ; 
- NORQ229: Butter, butter and other fats and oils derived from milk ; 
- NORQ230: Hens' eggs ; 
- NORQ231: White cabbages ; 
- NORQ232: Red cabbages . 
We also ask Norway to indicate whether it has considered modifying the administration of the tariff 
quotas in order to maximize their use, in accordance with the Bali Decision on tariff quota 
administration.   
2.1.4   United Kingdom ( G/AG/N/GBR/21 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106088: Question by Canada – Tariff quota fill  
Canada thanks the United Kingdom for its most recent MA:2 notification, covering marketing 
year 2022/2023. Canada notes that, in this notification, several of the United Kingdom's tariff -rate 
quotas (TRQ) appear to have low fill rates. This includes TRQ ID GBRQ001 (17,6%), GBRQ002 
(3,4%), GBR Q007 (0%), GBRQ008 (0%), GBRQ009 (1,6%), GBRQ010 (3%), GBRQ011 (0%), 
GBRQ012 (0%), GBRQ015 (0%), GBRQ020 (0%), GBRQ022 (0%), GBRQ024 (0%), GBRQ027 (0%), 
GBRQ039 (0%), GBRQ040 (5,1%), GBRQ044 (0,8%), GBRQ059 (0%), GBRQ063 (6,7%), GBRQ070 
(0%) and GBRQ071 (0 %).  
Canada also notes that Members have asked the United Kingdom to elaborate on its low TRQ fill 
rates in the past, most recently in AG -IMS ID s 102066 , 102115 , 102116  and 102117 .  
a. Could the United Kingdom explain what circum stances, including any market -related 
factors or any consideration related to TRQ administration and import requirements, would 
explain why several of its TRQs appear to be underutilized?  
b. Considering the consistently low fill rates of many of its TRQ, coul d the United Kingdom 
provide any information as to potential plans to modify its TRQ administration methods to 
improve these fill rates?  
2.1.5   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/168 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106089: Question  by Brazil – Tariff quota fill  
Data from the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) shows growth in the average 
consumer price index for various beef products in 2022 and 2023 with a forecast of high d omestic 
demand also in 2024. Given that existing beef quotas volumes remain unfulfilled and taking into 
account answers provided to questions 101047 and 103001, Brazil would like to ask the USA to:  
a. Comment on the reasons for such underfilling of availab le quotas; and  
b. Share if alternative arrangements for ensuring supply in the US, such as reallocation of unused 
quotas or tariff reductions, are under consideration.  
2.2  SPECIAL AGRICULTURAL SAFEGUARD S (TABLES MA:3 to MA:5)  
2.2.1   European Union ( G/AG/N/EU/86 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106171: Question by India – Transparency issues  
As per the recently notified MA:5 notification ( G/AG/N/EU/86 ), the EU invoked the price -based SSG 
for "Boneless cuts of fowl of the species" during the marketing year 2022 -23.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 32 - 
 
  In thi s context, could the EU provide the following information:  
a. What is the trigger price, date of application, and information related to Annex 1 of the 
MA:4 notification, including the information required for the calculation of the trigger price?  
b. Which are t he top five importing countries of the product for the marketing 
year 2022-2023? 
c. What is the bound tariff and applied tariff of the product?  
AG-IMS ID 106016: Question  by Brazil – Link with TRQ commitments  
In notification G/AG/N/EU/86 , the EU reported the  use of special price trigger safeguards for 
"boneless cuts of fowl of the species", under HS 02071410. Brazil requests confirmation that, in 
accordance with Article 5.2 of the AoA, the volumes allocated to TRQs for the product line in question 
were not af fected by the price trigger.  
2.3  DOMESTIC  SUPPORT COMMITMENTS ( TABLE  DS:1)  
2.3.1   Bangladesh ( G/AG/N/BGD/5 , G/AG/N/BGD/6 , G/AG/N/BGD/7 , G/AG/ N/BGD/8 , 
G/AG/N/BGD/9 , G/AG/N/BGD/10 , G/AG/N/BGD/11 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106023: Question by United States of America, Australia – Market price 
support: Eligible production  
Bangladesh has notified market price support for  rice and wheat in Supporting Table DS:5 in 
G/AG/N/BGD/11  and previous notifications.  The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated 
Bangladesh's paddy rice production at approximately 52 million metric tonnes  in 2020/21.  However, 
the sum of the eligible  production listed in Supporting Table DS:5 for rice is significantly less.   
a. Please explain how eligible production was determined for rice and wheat.  
b. For any procurement undertaken by the government, please explain how such 
procurement is released from pu blic stocks.  
c. Please confirm that Bangladesh does not operate a public stockholding for food security 
program given no such measures were notified in Supporting Table DS:1.  
AG-IMS ID 106019: Question by Canada  – Non-product -specific AMS  
In reviewing Bangladesh's Table DS:1 notifications for reporting periods 2008/09 ( G/AG/N/BGD/5 ), 
2010/ 2011 (G/AG/N/BG D/6), 2012/ 2013 (G/AG/N/BGD/7 , 2014/ 2015 (G/AG/N/BGD/8 ), 2016/ 2017 
(G/AG/N/BGD/9 ), 2018/ 2019 (G/AG/N/BGD/10 ), and 2020/ 2021 (G/AG/N/BGD/11 ), Canada would 
like to seek clarification on measures reported in Supp orting Table DS:9:   
a. Could Bangladesh clarify what programs or measures are included as part of its notification 
of indirect subsidies?   
b. How are these indirect subsidies provided to farmers with respect to imported urea and 
non-urea fertilizers?   
c. Could Bangladesh provide an example to illustrate the methodology used to calculate the 
outlays for these indirect subsidies?   
2.3.2   Burkina Faso ( G/AG/N/BFA/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21 , G/AG/N/BFA/22 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106090: Question by Canada  – Transparency issues (includi ng Table DS:2)  
Canada appreciates the effort Burkina Faso has made in submitting its annual domestic support 
notification for 2019, 2021 and 2022. Burkina Faso's notifications state that its government does 
not provide domestic support to its agricultural sector.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Despite this, Canada understands that Burkina Faso's Ministère de l'Agriculture et des 
Aménagements Hydro -agricoles has recently launched a regional (Sud -Ouest, Hauts -Bassins, 
Cascades and Boucle du Mohoun) agriculture support project 
(https://www.agriculture.gov.bf/accueil/details?tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail &tx_news_pi1
%5Bcontroller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=108&cHash=4cb2ca8cfb1fb45a33385705fc
73f283 ), and that the Minstère des Ressources Animales et Halieutiques  has provided input subsidies 
for forage seeds to Burkina Faso's agriculture producers 
(https://www.mra.gov.bf/accueil/details?tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D=detail&tx_news_pi1%5Bcon
troller%5D=News&tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D=127&cHash=271542e9e70fcf0888cefd065a196028
). 
a. Considering the above, could Burkina  Faso elaborate on potential plans to provide a 
domestic support notification to this Committee, which would reflect the implementation 
of these domestic support measures by Burkina Faso?   
b. Could Burkina Faso also provide an update on its plans to submit it s domestic support 
notification for 2020?   
AG-IMS ID 106092: Question by Paraguay – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank Burkina Faso for submitting three consecutive notifications, for 2020, 2021 and 2022, in 
documents G/AG/N/BFA/20 , G/AG/N/BFA/21  and G/AG/N/BFA/22 . We note that in the three 
documents, Burkina Faso advised that it "did not apply any domestic support measures" during those 
three calendar years. In this regard, we wish to ask the delegation of Burkina Faso to confirm  that, 
for the three calendar years reported in the aforementioned notifications, no support was provided 
that qualifies as Green Box support or that falls under the paragraph on general services, including, 
inter alia , support for research, pest and disea se control, and inspection services.  
2.3.3   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/158 , G/AG/N/CAN/159 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106095: Question by Paraguay - Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank the delegation of Canada for submitting notifications G/AG/N/CAN/158  and 
G/AG/N/CAN/159 , for the 2019 and 2020 fiscal years, and ask C anada to indicate:  
a. The reasons for the increase in the current total AMS from CAD  1,046.3 million to 
CAD 1,199.3 million.  
b. The reasons for increasing support for milk from 14.8% to 16% of the value of production.  
c. The reasons for increasing the total marke t price support and applied administered price 
for butter.  
d. The measures that Canada is taking to submit its pending notifications for the years 2021 
and 2022.   
AG-IMS ID 106096 : Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including Table 
DS:2)  
G/AG/N/CAN/159  
 
The European Union notes that Canada's non -product -specific support increased by more than 35 % 
in calendar year 2020 compared to calendar year 2019. The support level was also significantly 
higher than what has been notified for the five-year period prior to that. The increase in support 
seems mainly to be the result of the introduction of three new COVID -19-related measures 
("Emergency On -Farm Security Fund (COVID -19)", "Emergency On -Farm Support Fund (COVID -19)" 
and "Mandatory Isola tion Support for Temporary Foreign Workers Program (COVID -19)") in calendar 
year 2020 and an increase of "Federal Credit Concessions" from 36.7 million CAD in calendar 
year 2019 to 337.5 million CAD in 2020.  
a. Is the massive increase in "Federal Credit Conc essions" also related to COVID -19 or could 
it be explained by other factors?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 34 - 
 
  b. If so, what other factors could explain the increase?  
AG-IMS ID 106093 : Question by European Union – Domestic food aid  
The European Union notes that in Supporting Table DS:1 of G/AG/N/CAN/159 , Canada has notified 
under point 4 "Domestic food aid" – Food Rescue Program (COVID -19). 
Could Canada provide more details on the budget, criteria and duration of the program since this 
measure was not included in the most recent DS:2 not ification of Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/160 )?  
AG-IMS ID 106094: Question  by European Union – Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In Supporting Tables DS:6 of G/AG/N/CAN/158  and G/AG/N/CAN/159 , Canada has notified CAD 
338.8 million for CY 2019 and CAD 459.4 million respectively (CY 2020) for Dairy direct payment 
program, going beyond the 5% de-minimis  threshold.  
c. Could Canada provide details about this program?  
d. Could Canada explain the reason for the increase in the support under Dairy direct 
payment program between CY 2019 and CY 2020?  
e. Does Canada intend to continue the support also for 2021 and onwards?  
2.3.4   Chile ( G/AG/N/CHL/75 , G/AG/N/CHL/76 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106 097: Question by Thailand – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Thailand appreciates Chile for submitting the DS:1 notification for the calendar year 2021 and 2022. 
In Supporting Table DS:1 concerning the Green Box measures, Chile identifies two pro grammes 
relating to natural disasters which are Agricultural Emergency Fund and Agricultural insurance in a 
different category. For the Agricultural insurance, Chile supports or provides a partial financing of 
the insurance premium for economic losses due to natural disaster.  
a. Please provide additional details regarding the Agricultural insurance. What are the 
elements of the programme?  
b. Please identify what crops or agricultural products are eligible to receive premium support 
in the Agricultural insurance . 
c. Please explain how the Agricultural insurance operates in general term.  
d. Please explain how the Agricultural insurance comply with the criteria in Annex 2 of the 
AoA.  
2.3.5   Costa Rica ( G/AG/N/CRI/88 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106170: Question by India – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Costa Rica notified an environmental programme entitled "Recognition of the environmental benefits 
of organic farming" (RBAO ) with a budget allocation of USD 678.7  thousand ( G/AG/N/CRI/88 ) for 
the year 2021 which is approximately 60% of total budgetary expenditure on the environment 
measures. Under this programme, financial incentive is granted to  micro, small and medium ‑sized 
organic producers for the environmental benefits resulting from their activities.  
In this regard, India requests Costa Rica to provide details on the following:   
a. What are the eligibility criteria for farmers to receive financial benefits under this pro gram, 
also how does Costa Rica define micro, small and medium ‑sized organic producers?  
b. What are the factors  taken into consideration for the payments given to the producers 
covered under the RBAO?   
c. What are the products covered under this program?   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 35 - 
 
  d. Could Costa Rica indicate what types of "benefits" it considers to be eligible for the financi al 
payments under the said programme.  
e. Can farmers who get payments under the RBAO also receive  payments under the 
"Recognition of the environmental benefits of the Sustainable Agricultural Production 
Promotion Programme (PFPAS)" that offers financial benef its to farmers who 
practise  sustainable agriculture considering that organic farming falls within the realm of 
sustainable agricultural practices?  
f. What is the budget allocated for this program for the years 2022 and 2023?  
2.3.6   Japan ( G/AG/N/JPN/282 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106174: Question by India  – Non-product -specific AMS  
Japan has notified non -product -specific support of 230 JPY billion under crop income stabilization 
payment in its DS:1 notification G/AG/N/JPN/282 . India requests the following information:  
a. What are the crops that are covered under the scheme?  
b. What are the eligibility criteria to avail benefits from this scheme?  
c. For the sake of transparency, India requests Japan to share the link to the official website/ 
websites that provide details on the crop  income stabilization program.   
2.3.7   Kazakhstan ( G/AG/N/KAZ/21 , G/AG/N/KAZ/22 , G/AG/N/KAZ/23 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106098: Question  by European Union – Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union notes that in Supporting Table DS:9, Kazakhstan has reported subsidies for 
development of livestock breeding, im proving the productivity and quality of animal products.  
a. Could Kazakhstan explain whether these subsidies are aimed to support private entities 
or organisation (public or private)?  
b. What are the criteria to receive the subsidies?  
2.3.8   New Zealand ( G/AG/N/NZL/138 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106175: Question by India – General services: research  
Based on New Zealand's latest notification ( G/AG/N/NZL/138 ) for FY 2021 - 22, India notes that 
Primary Growth Partnership is closed to new  applicants, however,  existing contracts continue to run 
under the original  terms.  
a. How many agricultural  producers in New Zealand have already benefited under the 
scheme?  
b. What is the current number of beneficiaries continuing to  receive payments under the 
scheme?  
2.3.9   Paraguay ( G/AG/N/PRY/36 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106160: Question  by India – Domestic food aid  
India thanks Paraguay for their response in AG -IMS ID 105114 . In response to 'part -e' of AG -IMS 
ID 105114 , Paraguay has stated that, "Some of the programmes are aimed at helping subsistence 
farmers to grow crops for their own consumption". In this context, India requests Paraguay to 
provide details of programmes aimed at helping subsistence farmers to grow crop s for their own 
consumption that run under 'Project to improve campesina and indigenous family farming' and 
'Project to improve campesina and indigenous family farming in the Eastern Region'.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 36 - 
 
  2.3.10   Thailand ( G/AG/N/THA/85 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106176: Question by India – Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In the DS:1 notification G/AG/N/THA/85 , non-exempted product -specific support for rice has been 
provided in the form of loans for production and loans for stockholding in 2014 -2016.  
a. Could Thailand provide details of the program under which such credits were made?  
b. Are the programs still in effect in 2023?  
2.3.11   United Kingdom  (G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/GBR/20 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106053 : Question by United States of America – Classification of measures  
In G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1  and G/AG/N/GBR/20 , the United Kingdom has reclassified the Northern 
Ireland Coupled Support Scheme for Protein Crops as Amber Box from Blue Box following discussions 
in the Committee on Agri culture.  We would like to thank the United Kingdom for making this change.   
Please explain on what basis the United Kingdom determined to reclassify the Northern Ireland 
Coupled Support Scheme for Protein Crops as Amber Box.  
AG-IMS ID 106063: Question by U nited States of America – Classification of measures  
The United Kingdom recently reclassified the Northern Ireland Coupled Support Scheme for Protein 
Crops as Amber Box from Blue Box in G/AG/N/GBR/11/Rev.1  and G/AG/N/GBR/20  following a 
discussion in the Committee on Agriculture regarding the program incentivizing increased 
production.  It is noted the United Kingdom still notifies voluntary coupled support headage payments 
for beef and sheep as Blue Box.  Furthe r, the Government of Scotland has stated that the new 
Scottish Upland Sheep Support Scheme "has led to eligible farmers and crofters increasing their 
number of animals."  (For reference, see: https://ww w.gov.scot/news/sheep -support/ .) 
Please explain how the United Kingdom ensures that the criteria, including the cap, on its beef and 
sheep voluntary coupled headage payments are consistent with Article 6.5 of the Agreemen t on 
Agriculture.  
2.3.12   United States  of America ( G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/USA/169 , 
G/AG/N/USA/157/Corr.1 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106099 : Question by Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , in 'Supporting Table DS:4 – Calculation of the Current total Aggregate 
Measure of Support' (ST/DS:4), Canada notes that the United States' total aggregate measure of 
support (AMS) for 'dairy' was of USD 2 billion, i.e., at 4.97% of the United States' notified value of 
production for its dairy sector, and approximately USD 10.8 million away from the United States' 
5% de minimis  threshold for dairy.   
Also in ST/DS:4, under 'livestock,' the United States has also notified AMS of USD 679.7 million. As 
per footnote 2, the livestock category includes all species eligible for the United States Department 
of Agriculture's (USDA) Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), Livestock I ndemnity Program  (LIP) 
and, Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm -Raised Fish Program  (ELAP). 
According to the eligibility criteria contained in each of the LFP, LIP and ELAP's guidelines (found on 
the USDA's website), dairy cattle produce rs are eligible under these programs.   
Could the United States confirm whether the total of direct payments to the United States' dairy 
producers under the LFP, LIP and ELAP, during marketing year 2020/2021, did not exceed 
USD 10.8 million or 1.5% of payments under these programs?  
AG-IMS ID 106100: Question by Canada – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , in 'Supporting Table DS:9 – Non-product specific AMS' (STDS:9), the 
United States has notified USD 980 million in Agriculture Risk Coverage -Count y (ARC -CO) 
expenditures, and USD 4.988 billion in Price Loss Coverage (PLC) expenditures. Under footnote 3, G/AG/W/241  
 
- 37 - 
 
  the United States  explains that ARC -CO provides payments when county -level revenue for the 
covered commodity falls below the rolling average benchma rk for that commodity, and that PLC 
provides payments when the national average price for the commodity falls below the statutory 
reference for that commodity.   
According to the USDA's Farm Service Agency calculations (available at: 
https://www.fsa.usda.gov/Assets/USDA -FSA-Public/usdafiles/arc -
plc/2019/pdf/2019_arc_plc_payments.pdf ), as of 21 January 2021, 2019 ARC -CO and PLC 
commodity -specific payments totalled 1.73 billion for wheat, and USD 1.38 billion for corn. Canada 
understands that 2019 ARC -CO and PLC payments were made during marketing year 2020/2021, 
covered in G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 .  
Canada notes that under ST/DS:4, the United States notified USD 1.25 billion in CTAMS for wheat, 
and 5.1 billion for corn, neither of which comprise commodity -specific payments under ARC -CO and 
PLC, which have been notified as  non-product specific AMS.   
Also in G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , the United States notified USD 16.36 billion in CTAMS, 
approximately 2.74 billion away from the United States Total AMS commitment level of 
USD 19.1 billion.   
a. Could the United State s provide a clear rationale and elaborate on how commodity -specific 
ARC-CO and PLC payments are non -product specific?   
b. Could the United States provide information as to the quantity of wheat produced by 
recipients of the 2019 wheat commodity -specific ARC -CO and PLC payments? What 
proportion of the United States's production of wheat did this quantity constitute for that 
year?   
c. What proportion of the wheat commodity -specific ARC -CO/PLC payments went to 
recipients who did not produce any wheat that same year?   
d. Could the United States provide information as to the quantity of corn produced by 
recipients of the 2019 corn commodity -specific ARC -CO and PLC payments? What 
proportion of the United States's production of corn did this quantity constitute for that 
year?  
e. What proportion of the corn commodity -specific ARC -CO/PLC payments went to recipients 
who did not produce any corn that same year?   
AG-IMS ID 106103: Question by Canada – Transparency  issues (including Table DS:2)  
In G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , dated  29 August 2023, under measures exempt from the reduction 
commitment – "Green Box," paragraph 2(d) – extension and advisory services, Canada notes that, 
as part of the United States's revision of G/AG/N/USA/166 , the United States added new 
expenditures of approximately USD 1 billion under 'Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 
Technical Assistance for Farm Bill Conservation Programs.' In a footnote, the United States explains 
that separate budget data f or financial and technical assistance only recently became available. 
Canada appreciates that, on 3 September 2023, the United States has issued a correction to 
G/AG/N/USA/157  to provide expenditures under this program for Marketing Year 2019/2020, a nd 
that this program has been included in G/AG/N/USA/169 , issued on 29  August 2023.   
a. Could the United States provide additional information on the period of application of this 
program? When has the implementation of this program started?   
b. This appears to be a new or modified program exempt from reduction commitments, could 
the United States provide information on potential plans to submit a DS:2 notification that 
would include this program?   
In addition, in G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , Canada notes that, under paragraph 2(f) – marketing and 
promotion services, the United States notified USD 23 million in expenditures for the NRCS' Urban 
Agriculture and Innovation Program (UAIP), whereas, no expenditures related to that program had G/AG/W/241  
 
- 38 - 
 
  been notified in G/AG/N/USA/166 . There appears to be no footnote to explain why this program was 
not in the original notification. However, G/AG/N/USA/157/Corr.1  also provides expenditures under 
this program for Marketing Year 2019/2020 , and the United States has also notified expenditures 
for this program in G/AG/N/USA/169 . Canada understands that the NRCS's constituent parts were 
renamed as such through the  Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture 
Reorganizatio n Act of 1994 .  
c. Could the United States provide an explanation as to why this program was not notified 
in G/AG/N/USA/157 or G/AG/N/USA/166?   
d. When has implementation of the UAIP started? Has data for the UAIP recently become 
available?   
e. Considering  that this is also a new or modified program exempt from reduction 
commitments, could the United States provide information on any plans it may have to 
include this program in a future DS:2 notification?   
f. What practices and mechanisms has the United States put in place, including with the 
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) NRCS, to ensure that all of its domestic 
support measures are notified as part of its annual WTO domestic support notifications?   
g. Are there other measures that the NRC S maintains that should also be notified?   
AG-IMS ID 106104: Question  by European Union – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
The E uropean Union  congratulates the U nited States for the substantial decrease in the non -product 
specific AMS (reported i n supporting table DS:9) from approximately USD  16,243.5  million in 
MY 2020/2021 ( G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 ) to USD 9,762.7 million for MY 2021/2022.  
According to Supporting Table DS:4, the current total AMS for Marketing year 2021/2022 is 
USD 3,842.26 million which is well below the previous reported total AMS of USD 16,363.59 million.  
Nevertheless, the EU has noted that the total amount of the product specific de -minimis has 
increased, as well as the Value of production, which explains the dec rease in the Current Total AMS.  
The VoP for the traditionally  highly subsidized soybeans and corn has increased by approx. 40%.  
a. Could the US provide more details on VoP  calculation: quantity of production used; prices 
etc.? 
b. Does the US consider adapting the product specific support to the inflation rate?  
c. Could the US confirm whether the Amber box support will continue to decrease during the 
next Marketing year or additio nal support has been envisaged to cover the increased costs 
and inflation?  
AG-IMS ID 106106: Question by European Union – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/USA/169  
While notified support for many types of products has decreased between Marketing Year 2020/2021 
and Marketing Year 2021/2022, this is not the case for livestock and poultry. Instead product -specific 
support for livestock in Supporting Ta ble DS:4 increased from 679.738 million USD in Marketing 
Year 2020/2021 to 2,150.316 million USD in 2021/2022, representing an increase by more than 
216%. For poultry, product specific support increased from 94.597 million USD in Marketing Year 
2020/2021 t o 262.509 million USD in Marketing Year 2021/2022, representing an increase by almost 
178%. The increase in support for livestock seems to be attributable to increased emergency 
assistance and disaster assistance payments in Marketing Year 2021/2022, while  the increase in 
support for poultry seems to be attributable to increased payments under CFAP in Marketing Year G/AG/W/241  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2021/2022. Could the United States please elaborate a bit more on the reasons behind the increase 
in support for livestock and poultry in Marke ting Year 2021/2022?  
AG-IMS ID 106177: Question by India – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
In the Supporting Table DS:4 of the United States' recent domestic support notification 
(G/AG/N/USA/169 ), the support as a percentage of value of pr oduction for sugar is 50.44% 
(MY 2021-2022). India observes that from 2013 to 2021, the support for sugar has consistently 
been above 50 %.  
In this context, is the US taking any policy reforms to reduce their support for sugar? If yes, please 
provide the r elevant details.   
AG-IMS ID 106109 : Question by New Zealand – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/USA/169  
New Zealand notes that there has been a sharp decrease in Product Specific Support (PSS) between 
the marketing years 2020 -2021 and  2021-2022 according to the U.S. latest Domestic Support 
notification. Can the US please offer some insight into why their PSS has decreased so sharply?  
AG-IMS ID 106110: Question by New Zealand – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2)  
G/AG/N/USA/169  
Even with the CFAP ending, we note that support levels have dramatically decreased further than in 
the U.S. 2018 -2019 Marketing Year Domestic Support notification. We welcome the US' commitment 
to decrease trade distorting support levels, however we se ek additional insight into what in the U.S. 
domestic environment contributed to this change?  
AG-IMS ID 106108: Question by European Union – General services: infrastructural 
services  
In Supporting Table DS:1, The United States notifies an increase in support through infrastructural 
services from 3,489 million USD in Marketing Year 2020/2021 to 5,009 million USD in Marketing 
Year 2021/2022, representing an increase of almost 44 %. All support under this category during 
both Marketing Years is related to the Risk Management Agency (RMA). Could the United States 
please explain the reasons behind this increase of support?  
AG-IMS ID 106105: Question by European Union – Domestic food aid  
Supporting Table DS:1:  
 
The E uropean Union  has noted that the Green box s upport has increased, mainly under "Domestic 
Food Aid".  
a. Could the US kindly confirm whether the increase is mainly due to the new Green box 
measures, reported in U.S. DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/USA/170) ? 
b. Could the US also confirm whether all programs listed under point 4 Domestic food aid in 
DS:1 supporting table , will continue also during the following MYs or will be replaced by 
the new Green box measures reported ( G/AG/N/USA/170) ? 
AG-IMS ID 10617 8: Question by India – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
India thanks the United States for submitting their Domestic Support (DS:1) notification for 
2021-2022 (G/AG/N/USA/169 ) and submitting the revised domestic support notific ation for 
2020-2021 (G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 ).  
India requests the reasons behind the reduction in environmental programmes support from 
USD 4,021 million in 2020 -2021 (G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 ) to USD 3,861 million in 2021 -2022 
(G/AG/N/USA/169 ).  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 40 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 106102 : Question by Canada – Other product -specific AMS/EMS  
In G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , G/AG/N/USA/169 , and in previous notificatio ns, in Supporting 
Table  DS:6 – Product -Specific Aggregate Measurement of Support: Non -Exempt Direct Payments 
(ST/DS:6), the United States notified non -exempt direct payments both for "Beef cattle and calves" 
and for "livestock." Non -exempt direct payments for 'livestock' include payments under the United 
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP), Livestock 
Indemnity Program (LIP), Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees and Farm -Raised Fish 
Program (ELAP) and Em ergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELRP).   
Under footnote 2 of Supporting Table DS:4 (ST/DS:4), the United States explains that the livestock 
category includes all species eligible for LFP, LIP and ELAP program, i.e., cattle & calves, sheep & 
lambs, pou ltry, swine, goats, llamas, alpacas, emus, deer, elk, reindeer, and equine.  According to 
that note, the value of production does not include reindeer, for which data are not reported.   
Canada understands that the LFP, LIP, and ELRP programs provide different rates of payment that 
vary according to each species of livestock, including a product -specific rate for beef cattle and 
calves producers.   
a. Considering that the LFP, LIP and ELRP pro grams provide non -exempt direct payments to 
beef cattle and calve producers, could the United States provide a clear rationale as to 
why its non -exempt direct payments for beef cattle and calves under these programs are 
notified under 'livestock' rather th an with 'beef cattle and calves'?   
In G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , the United States notified USD 572.93 million in LFP, LIP and ELRP 
payments, while in G/AG/N/USA/169 , the United States notified USD 1.87 billion in LFP, LIP and 
ELRP paymen ts.  
  
b. For G/AG/N/USA/169 , out of the USD 1.87 billion notified, could the United States provide 
the total amounts of non -exempt direct payments provided to beef cattle and calves 
producers under the LFP, LIP, ELRP programs during marketing year 2021 /2022?   
AG-IMS ID 106107: Question by European Union – Non-product -specific AMS  
The European Union also notes that a new and sizeable non -product -specific support program called 
Emergency Relief Program (ERP) exceeding seven billion USD in outlays is notif ied for Marketing 
year 2021/2022.  
a. Is this program a replacement for the former "Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program 
(WHIP and WHIP+)"?  
b. What are the differences between the programs in question?  
c. What are the reasons behind the increase in non -product -specific emergency support in 
Marketing Year 2021/2022?  
AG-IMS ID 106101 : Question by Canada – Classification of measures  
In G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1  and in G/AG/N/USA/169 , under "measures exempt from the reduction 
commitment – "Green Box," paragraph 2(g) – infrastructural services," the United States has notified 
expenditures of approximately USD 3.5 billion an d USD 5 billion, respectively. These expenditures 
were all tied to the Risk Management Agency's (RMA): (1) salaries and expenses for the 
management of the Federal Crop Insurance Program; (2) administrative and operating 
reimbursements to insurers deliverin g Federal crop insurance; and (3) underwriting gains to insurers 
under the Standard Reinsurance Agreement.   
Canada notes that the policy -specific criteria under Annex 2, paragraph 2(g) of the WTO Agreement 
on Agriculture (i.e., infrastructural services) in cludes programs that support electricity reticulation, 
roads and other means of transport, market and port facilities, water supply facilities, dams and 
drainage schemes, and infrastructural works associated with environmental programmes.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 41 - 
 
  According to the  policy -specific criteria under which this program is notified by the United States, in 
all cases, expenditures should be directed to the provision or construction of capital works only. They 
shall not include subsidies to input or operating costs, or pref erential user charges.   
Canada also notes that in 'Supporting Table DS:4 – Calculation of the Current total Aggregate 
Measure of Support' (STDS:4), the United States notified USD 16.2 billion in non -product specific 
aggregate measure of support (AMS) in G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , approximately USD 2.43 billion 
away from the United States' 5% de minimis threshold. Also in G/AG/N/USA/166/Rev.1 , the United 
States notified USD 16.36 billion in current total AMS (CTAMS), approximatel y USD 2.74 billion away 
from the United States total AMS commitment level of USD 19.1 billion.   
a. Could the United States elaborate on how the RMA's activities mentioned above, in (1) -(3), 
would be directed to the provision or construction of capital works only, and meet the 
policy -specific criteria under paragraph 2(g)?   
b. Considering that expenditures under paragraph 2(g) shall not include subsidies to 
operating costs, could the United States elaborate on how the expenditures providing for 
salaries and  expenses in the management of the Federal Crop Insurance Program, and for 
administrative and operating reimbursements to insurers meet this particular condition?   
c. As the expenditures notified appear to cover insurance and reinsurance services, could the 
United States explain how these activities would meet any of the policy -specific criteria 
under paragraph 2 – general services, or any other Annex 2 policy -specific criteria, for 
these expenditures to be exempt from reduction commitments?   
d. Should these not be exempt from reduction commitments, could the United States provide 
any consideration as to whether these USD 3.5 billion and USD 5 billion in expenditures 
would be notified as non -product specific AMS? If so, what would be the United States' 
CTAMS in G/AG/N/USA/166/R ev.1? 
AG-IMS ID 106112: Question  by New Zealand – Classification of measures  
G/AG/N/USA/169  
What aspects of the ERP and WHIP+ led to the programmes being notified under Supporting 
Table  DS:9, rather than Supporting Table DS:1? What factors differentiate these programmes from 
being notified as Disaster Relief as part of the Green  Box? 
2.4  NEW OR MODIFIED  DOMESTIC SUPPORT MEASURES ( TABLE DS:2)  
2.4.1   Canada ( G/AG/N/CAN/160 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106113 : Question by Paraguay – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank the delegation of Canada for submitting notification G/AG/N/CAN/160 , which lists 
numerous programmes that are exempt from reduction, including the CAP priority area: 
Environmental sustainability and climate change (Cost -Shared) programme (pages 18 –21 of the 
notification), which is made up of 10 regional programmes repres enting a total cost of 
CAD 295.4  million over five years (2018 –2023). We would be grateful if Canada could answer the 
following questions concerning this programme:  
a. Why were programmes that have been in effect since 2018 notified in the DS:2 format 
in 2023, the year of their completion?  
b. Which components of the programmes correspond to the provincial agri -environment 
interventions indicated in the second subsection on environmental programmes notified 
under paragraph 12 in Canada's DS:1 notifications, and w hich part of the programmes 
constitute federal/provincial programmes indicated in the first subsection on 
environmental programmes notified under paragraph 12 in Canada's DS:1 notifications.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.4.2   European  Union ( G/AG/N/EU/87 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106114 : Question by Canada – Domestic food aid  
Canada thanks the European Union for its DS:2 notification and welcomes the European Union's 
European Social Fund Plus (ESF+) initiative, being implemented under Regulation (EU) 2021/105 7. 
Canada understands that individual European Union member States are responsible for its 
implementation (including selecting their partner organization).  
The European Union has notified this measure as meeting the policy -specific criteria of Annex 2, 
paragraph 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, which states that food purchases by the government 
shall be made at current market prices. Accordingly, the European Union notes that food purchases 
for the schemes are made at current market prices or lower.  
Howev er, further to a reference in Article 19 (Principles), paragraph 2 of Regulation 2021/1057 to 
using "economically the most favourable option" in food purchases obtained "from the use, 
processing or sale of the products disposed of in accordance with Articl e 16(2) of Regulation (EU) 
No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council" (i.e., disposal of products bought in 
under public intervention),  it is unclear to Canada whether there is an effective requirement for 
European Union member States to p urchase food at current market prices.  
a. Could the European Union elaborate on the processes and methods it has put in place to 
ensure that its member States purchase food at current market prices or lower under the 
ESF+?  
b. Could the European Union confirm tha t ESF+ food purchases obtained from products 
disposed of by common market organizations (CMO) in accordance with Article 16(2) of 
Regulation No 1308/2013 are made at current market prices rather than at the CMO's 
administered price?  
2.4.3   European  Union ( G/AG/N/EU/88 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106180: Question by Argentina – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
First, we thank the EU for its notification of new programmes.  
In relation to the policies notified, specifically, under Decoupled Direct Payments, the schemes fo r 
the climate, the environment and animal welfare (eco -schemes) and under Types of Interventions 
in Rural Development (environmental, climate -related and other management commitments), these 
are very important policies and we would like to ask some questio ns with the objective of 
understanding these policies and their applicability in countries with resource constraints:  
a. Bearing in mind paragraph 12 of Annex 2 to the Agreement on Agriculture, we would 
appreciate it if a description could be provided of the environmental or conservation 
programmes to which the payments were made.  
b. How are each producer's extra costs or loss of income involved in complying with the 
programme calculated?  
c. Is there a procedure for monitoring the commitments undertaken by the r ecipients? If so, 
what is it?  
d. Is there any type of audit to assess the environmental impact of the environmental 
regulation being encouraged? If so, what is it?  
e. What kind of assessments have been or are envisaged to minimize the negative trade -offs 
that co uld arise from support to farmers from an environmental perspective, taking into 
account the need to ensure that agrifood systems are sustainable, equitable and more 
efficient (across their three dimensions)?  
f. Is a long -term environmental impact assessment of the measures notified by the EU in 
document G/AG/N/EU/88  envisaged?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 43 - 
 
  g. How does the EU reconcile its support for farmers in areas with natural or other constraints 
specific to the area, including mountainous and island regions, with its objectives of 
promoting efficiency and sustainability in agriculture, and what steps are being taken to 
address possible contradictions in these policies?  
h. With reference  to "Coupled Direct Payments - Coupled Income Support", which specific 
criteria will be used to determin e the importance of certain agricultural sectors or types of 
farming that will be eligible for this support? In addition, what is being done to ensure that 
this support contributes effectively to efforts to address economic, social and/or 
environmental dif ficulties without causing negative consequences that are greater than 
the issues it sought to resolve?"  
AG-IMS ID 106116: Question by Australia – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting their DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/88 . 
Australia notes that under the EU's Investments including investments in irrigation  measure, support 
for investments – productive as well as non -productive – may be provided for on -farm or off -farm 
projects. Furthermore, such investments may c oncern, inter alia, infrastructures related to the 
development, modernisation or adaptation to climate change of agriculture and forestry.  
Annex 2, paragraph 2(g) of the AoA sets out the specific requirement for expenditure on 
infrastructure services that "in all cases the expenditure shall exclude the subsidized provision of 
on-farm facilities other than for the reticulation of generally available public utilities". Noting this 
requirement, could the EU clarify whether it plans to provide support for on -farm infrastructure 
projects as part of this measure?  
AG-IMS ID 106128: Question by India – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
India thanks the EU  for its DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/EU/88 ). Under the Complementary Income 
Support for  Young Farmers (CI SYF) scheme, young farmers are provided income support after  initial 
setting up.  
In this context, India seeks the following information:  
a. What are the eligibility criteria to avail benefits  under the scheme?   
b. Further, how many times can a beneficiary avail the scheme?  
c. Is the Young Farmers Scheme (YFS) under the  previous CAP still under implementation?  
d. What is the difference between the YFS and the new  CISYF scheme?  
e. Why was there a need to create a new complementary  income support scheme for young 
farmers?  
AG-IMS ID 106173 : Question by India – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
As per the DS:2 notification ( G/AG/N/EU/88 ), the Basic Income Support for Sustainability (BISS)  
scheme guarantees a minimum level of agricultural income support for all active  farmers to underpin 
their sustainability and viability.  
In this context, India seeks the following information:  
a. What are the eligibility criteria for the beneficiaries to  receive funds under this scheme?  
b. It is understood that the BISS replaces the Basic Payment  Scheme (BPS). Is the BPS still 
under implementation? How is BISS different from  the BPS?  
c. What kind of agricultural practices does the scheme consider  as "beneficial for climate and 
environment"? The  EU is requested to provide  examples.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 44 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 106119: Question by Japan – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan appreciates DS2 notification from the EU, G/AG/N/EU/88 , and would like to ask the EU 
following questions.  
a. Japan would like to ask  about newly established program Complementary 
Redistributive Income Support for Sustainability (CRISS)  out of seven different 
direct payment programs set in the EU new Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Japan 
would like to know more about the background of  the need for CRISS. What, if any, 
unfairness or disparity has been acknowledged between larger holdings and small and 
medium -sized holdings in existing direct payments? What are the specific policy intentions 
of this payment? What percentage of the total direct payments budget does each 
EU member States actually allocate to CRISS?  
b. Schemes for the climate, the environment and animal welfare (eco -schemes)  are 
outlined in the notification that should aim to enhance the environmental and climate -
related perfor mance of the CAP and to achieve higher performance than the requirements 
already prescribed. Could the EU describe specific aspects of policy performance to be 
improved on the previous scheme. Also, what review and evaluation methods is the EU 
planning to take for this newly introduced scheme?  
AG-IMS ID 106120 : Question by Paraguay – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
We thank the delegation of the European Union for  submitting notification G/AG/N/EU/88 , which 
contains numerous programmes exempt  from reduction.  
a. Concerning schemes  for the climate, the environment and animal welfare (eco ‑schemes). 
We are glad to see that the EU  states that it meets the requirements for this type of 
programme set forth in  Annex 2 to the Agreement on  Agriculture.  
i. Could  the EU explain  how it measures "the extra costs or loss of income involved in 
complying  with the programme" when calculating the payments, particularly since the  
information included in the DS:1 notifications does not allow this to be  assessed, and 
that the relevant DS:2 notification also fails to provide  details?  
ii. The EU mentions  that payments may be granted to remunerate "the provision of public 
goods by  agricultural  practices beneficial to the environment and climate". Given  that 
additional remuneration is not permitted under the criteria set out in paragraph  12, 
and that it is not possible to identify the programme in the DS:1 notifications  because 
of the notification format used by the EU, could the EU specify the  paragraph under 
which this measure is notified and how it complies with the  established requirements?  
b. With regard to Coupled  Income Support:  
i. Could the EU explain  how the agricultural sectors that are particularly important for 
economic  and/or social and/or environmental reas ons are determined?  
ii. Could the EU explain  how the base level of production is established in order to 
determine the fixed  number of animals or the fixed areas and yields in compliance with 
Article 6.5  of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
c. Concerning  crop specifi c payment for cotton:  
i. Could the EU explain  how it determines the fixed areas and yields on which direct 
payments are  based?  
ii. The EU states that if  the eligible cotton area exceeds the base area, aid is reduced 
proportionally  to the overshoot. Could the EU explain how an increase in production is  
consistent with the requirements of Article 6.5 for continuing to receive this  type of 
support, even if th e support is reduced proportionally to the  overshoot?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 45 - 
 
  d. Concerning  sectorial  interventions : 
i. Could the EU explain  how it determines, for each instance covered by paragraphs  11 
and 12, that  the payment is limited to the amount required to compensate for the 
structural  disadvantage or to the extra costs or loss of income involved in complying 
with the programmes? Especially in relation to programmes where the cost to the  
producer will already be lower because support is provided for damage  prevention (not 
for the implementation of environmental programmes) or input  saving, or where, for 
market -related reasons, the producer may not incur  losses, such as where support is 
provided for organic production.  
AG-IMS ID 106018: Question  by Brazil  – Direct  payments: paym ents under 
environmental programmes  
In notification G/AG/N/EU/88 , the European Union provided additional information on the 
relationship between national programs and the bloc's strategic goals in relation to the new CAP, 
which had already been preliminar ily explored in this Committee, for example through the question 
presented by Brazil, AG-IMS ID 100070 . 
Acknowledging the information provided through the DS:2 notification and other communications, 
Brazil asks the EU for more detail on the relationship between eco -schemes, which can be classified 
under different paragraphs of Annex 2 as direct payments, and environmental programs in general 
under paragraph 12 of Annex 2 of the AoA.  
How would the compensatory nature of the support provided be proven in the case of investments 
in new technologies in highly competitive sectors, such as wine, olive oil and beekeeping, which 
already price the use of these new tec hnologies?  
AG-IMS ID 106118: Question by Canada – Payments based on 85 % or less of the base 
level of production  
Section 1.3.2 – Coupled Direct Payments  
Canada thanks the European Union for its DS:2 notification and takes note of the European Union's 
new Co mmon Agricultural Policy (CAP). Canada understands that Coupled Income Support can be 
applied to 19 agricultural sectors and types of production at the choice of each European Union 
member State. As part of its notification, the European Union mentions as well that member States 
may grant Coupled Income Support as direct payments under production -limiting programmes under 
Article 6.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture (AoA). However, it is unclear to Canada how and which 
payments under this measure would compl y with the criteria set out by Article 6.5 of the AoA, as 
the European Union did not provide a clear justification as to how and which payments would meet 
said criteria in its notification.   
a. Could the European Union elaborate on how and which payments unde r this measure 
would meet all of the relevant criteria of Article 6.5 of the AoA, including the production -
limiting criteria? What conditions and eligibility requirements would have to be met? Do 
these vary by commodity? If so, please provide the informati on per commodity.   
b. For each of the commodities eligible to receive Article 6.5 payments under this measure, 
could the European Union describe how payments are calculated, including any relevant 
formulas used in calculating support levels?  
AG-IMS ID 106115 : Question by Australia – Classification of measures  
Australia thanks the EU for submitting their DS:2 notification G/AG/N/EU/88 . 
Australia notes that member States may grant Coupled Income Support as direct payments under 
production -limiting programmes w ithin defined quantitative limits and based on fixed areas and 
yields or on a fixed number of animals in compliance with Article 6.5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture  (AoA).  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Australia further notes that EU member States "may grant Coupled Income Support in c learly defined 
cases where specific types of farming or specific agricultural sectors that are particularly important 
for economic and/or social and/or environmental reasons undergo certain difficulties in terms of risk 
of decline or abandonment of product ion." 
Based on the above description, the EU's Coupled Income Payments appear to be designed as a 
safety net to protect production rather than limit production.  
Australia seeks clarification on the Coupled Income Support programme and its notification as a  
programme consistent with Article 6.5 of the AoA. Australia recognises that support under this 
program is limited in terms of both amounts available and objectives. However, we question how 
this measure is 'production -limiting', as required to qualify as this category of support pursuant to 
Article 6.5, paragraph (a) of the AoA.   
2.4.4   United States of America ( G/AG/N/USA/170 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106124 : Question by Japan – Transparency issues (including Table DS:2)  
Japan finds itself interested in 'Urban Agricultur e and Innovative Production (UAIP)', notified in the 
G/AG/N/USA/170  and would like to ask the following questions.  
a. We can see various forms of agriculture are involved in this program. What is the definition 
of "Urban Agriculture" under this program? Is it defined merely according to geographical 
proximity to urban areas?  
b. According to  the USDA website 
(https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/uaip -projects.xlsx ) 182 projects 
have been granted and we find each project very interesting. If the US plans to publish a 
live report of each project or a summary of best practices, would the US please share the 
access informati on? 
c. Quite a few of the projects in this measure seem to be consistent more with paragraph  2(c) 
(training services) or 2(d) (extension and advisory services) rather than paragraph  2(f) 
(marketing and promotion services) of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agricu lture as notified 
in G/AG/N/US A/170 , since they focus on resilient food system to combat food insecurity, 
community learning, offering a job opportunity, for instance. Would the US be able to 
provide further explanations and examples that indicate th is measure's consistency with 
paragraph 2(f)?  
AG-IMS ID 106125: Question by New Zealand – Transparency issues (including 
Table  DS:2) 
Is contract bidding process as part of the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Programme 
be opened to agricultural  exporters outside of the United States? Will it be opened to international 
markets?  
AG-IMS ID 106122: Question by European Union – Domestic food aid  
The title of the measure "Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program", that the Unite d 
States notifies in its DS:2 notification, indicates that the food provided through the program is of 
local origin. However, this is not explained in the description of the measure. In light of this, the 
European Union would like to pose the following ques tions:  
a. Is there a requirement that the food provided through the program should be of local 
origin?  
b. If so, how can the United States conclude that the measures in question have no trade -
distorting effects or effects on production?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 47 - 
 
  AG-IMS ID 106121: Questio n by Canada – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Canada thanks the United States for its DS:2 notification. Regarding the United States' Organic and 
Transitional Education and Certification Program (OTECP) notified in G/AG/N/USA/170 , the United 
States mentions that payments only cover a portion of eligible expenses, which include certification 
expenses, registration fees, and soil testing expenses that are required for organic certification. 
Recipients are required to report any p ayments under the Organic Certification Cost Share 
Program  (OCCSP), which prevents reimbursements for more than the total amount of expenses.  
a. Could the United States provide information as to what portion of eligible expenses under 
the OTECP are covered by the payments? Is there a limit?  
b. What share of eligible expenses are covered by the OTECP and the OCCSP respectively? 
Is there a limit to OCCS P payments?  
c. At what stage of the process are applicants required to report any payments under the 
OCCSP?   
d. Could the US elaborate on processes and methods it has put in place to ensure compliance 
with this requirement?  
AG-IMS ID 106123: Question  by Japan – Direct payments: payments under 
environmental programmes  
Japan welcomes  the DS:2 notification from the U nited States, G/AG/N/USA/170 .  
With regard to 'Organic and Transitional Education Certification Program (OTECP)', could the US 
answer the following  question?  
a. Could the US elaborate on the higher unexpected costs related to organic certification that 
resulted from the COVID -19 pandemic?  
b. What is the number of applications and issuance for USDA Organic Certification by state 
during the period covered un der this program?  
c. Does the US plan to sustain the scheme of the current program that makes it easier 
especially for small -scale producers and handlers to obtain or to renew Organic 
Certification in a post -pandemic future for the sake of reducing their econ omic burden?  
2.5  EXPORT  SUBSIDY NOTIFICATIONS (TABLES ES:1, ES:2 AND ES:3)  
2.5.1   Thailand ( G/AG/N/THA/94 , G/AG/N/THA/95 , G/AG/N/THA/110 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106060 : Question by United States of America – Transparency issues  
Thailand has notified in (Table ES:1) G/AG/N/THA/94 , G/AG/N/THA/95 , G/AG/N/THA/110 , 
G/AG/N/THA/123 , G/AG/N/THA/124  and G/AG/N/THA/125  that it did not apply export subsidies to 
agricultural products during calendar years 2018 to 2022.   
According to recent news articl es, the Government of Thailand has provided crude palm oil exporters 
with a transport -cost subsidy from THB 1.75 up to THB 2 per kilograms in order to address domestic 
surplus issues and to stabilize prices. This transport -cost subsidy was provided to expo rters for their 
operating costs, including transportation, warehouses, quality control, and other fees.    
a. Please provide a full description of Thailand's transport -cost subsidy program for crude 
palm oil exports.  
b. Please confirm whether this measure was an export subsidy.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 48 - 
 
  c. If the program is an export subsidy, explain why it was not included in Thailand's export 
subsidy notifications, and if not, explain why Thailand considers that it is not an export 
subsidy.  
d. If this program is an export subsidy, please confirm if Thailand will end it and all other 
Agreement on Agriculture Article 9.4 export subsidies for agricultural products by the end 
of calendar year 2023, in accordance with the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition.  
2.6  EXPORT PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS  (TABLE ER:1)  
2.6.1   Malaysia  (G/AG/N/MYS/56 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106126: Question by European Union – Transparency issues  
On 5 September, Malaysia has submitted a notification to the WTO – G/AG/N/MYS/56  (issued on 
05/09/2023), informing of an export restrictions  on: Live day old chick broilers. The measure is in 
force from 1 July 2023 until 31 December 2023.  
Malaysia already introduced a similar measure during the same period of 2022.  
The EU thanks Malaysia for notifying this measure. Could Malaysia explain what would be the 
expected impact of the measure on trade in the products concerned, also based on the experience 
gained from the past restrictive measure imposed in 2022?   
AG-IMS ID 10 6127: Question  by Japan – Transparency issues  
As a Net -food importing Member, Japan has an interest in improvement of predictability and 
transparency of measures of export prohibition and restriction, and Japan appreciates Malaysia's 
submission of the ER n otification G/AG/N/MYS/56  in accordance with the WTO agreements.  
Japan would like Malaysia to answer the following items for better understanding of the measure 
introduced.    
a. What is the reason that Malaysia could not submit the ER notification before  applying the 
measure, as there was a two -month delay in submission of the notification from the 
commencement of the measure?  
b. Could Malaysia provide more detailed explanation about the situation of "the temporary 
shortage of live day old chick broilers" in  Malaysia?  
c. What is the rationale for the duration of the measure?  
d. What specific procedures have been taken for giving due consideration to the effect of the 
measure on importing Members' food security?  
3  OVERDUE NOTIFICATIONS  
3.1  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 106172 : Question by India  
India notes that the EU's latest DS:1 notification  is for the marketing year 2019 -20 
(G/AG/N/EU/79 ). As per the notification  requirements and format under G/AG/2 , Members with Total 
AMS commitment in Part  IV of their Schedule are required to submit its domestic support notification  
no later  than 90 days following the end of the calendar (or, marketing,  fiscal, etc.) year in question.   
In contrast to certain developing countries that have successfully managed to  submit their 2021 -22 
DS:1 notif ication, the EU's notifications have been  delayed. In this context, India would like to know 
by when would the EU notify  its pending domestic support notifications, namely for marketing years 
2020-2021 and 2021 -2022?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 49 - 
 
  3.2  India  
AG-IMS ID 106038 : Question by Un ited States of America, Paraguay, Australia –  
The below question is asked to India as a follow up to AG ‑IMS IDs 97081 , 93168 , 92030 , 91143  and 
88085  and considering that 1) India's last Table ES:1 was for 2013/14 and India has utilized 
agricultural export subsidies  since then, and 2) India has never notified a Table ES:3 notification 
even though India has provided international food aid.    
Please provide an update on the status of preparation of its overdue Table ES:1 and Table ES:3 
notifications.  Also, please clari fy when the Committee on Agriculture can expect to receive these 
notifications.  
3.3  Kazakhstan  
AG-IMS ID 106059: Question by United States of America – Transparency issues 
(including Table DS:2)  
Following up on AG -IMS ID 102024  regarding Kazakhstan's overdue domestic support notifications 
and noting that Kazakhstan stated in AG -IMS ID 92040  in October 2019 that notifications would be 
provided "in the nearest future," we remain concerned with Kazakhstan's lack of transparency, 
particularly given Kazakhstan has never made a domestic support notification.   
Please clarify when Kazakhstan intends to provide its overdue domestic support notifications (Tables 
DS:1 and DS:2).  
3.4  Thailand  
AG-IMS ID 106179 : Question by India  
In response of question AG -IMS ID 105113 , Thailand had stated that they were in the process of 
gathering information for publishing their outstanding DS:1 notifica tions for calendar years 2017, 
2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021, and would notify the CoA at the earliest. India would again like to ask 
by when Thailand would be in a position to comply with their transparency and notification 
obligations, and if it is taking a ny measures to ensure expeditious compliance with these obligations.   
3.5  Türkiye  
AG-IMS ID 106057: Question by United States of America  
We appreciate Türkiye's efforts to fulfill its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture to 
provide accurate info rmation regarding its domestic support and export subsidies. We note that 
Türkiye's most recent export subsidy notification is for calendar year 2013 and was published 
in 2019, and its most recent domestic support notification is for calendar year 2016.   
a. We would like to follow up on the question AG -IMS ID  100024  and inquire about the status 
of Türkiye's overdue notifications for export subsidies and domestic support.  
b. Please explain what efforts Türkiye has taken to meet its obligations to the WTO COA on 
notifying Members of its domestic support and export subsidies."   
3.6  Uruguay  
AG-IMS ID 106181 : Question by India  
In response to India's question AG -IMS ID 105112 , on Uruguay's outstanding DS:1 notifications, 
Uruguay had stated that they were finalizing the notifications for the years 2017, 2018, 2019, 
and 2020 which they intended to notify at the CoA by its 106th meeting. India would like to enquire 
about the status of these pending notifications. By when would Uruguay comply with their 
transparency and notification obligations under the AoA by filing the DS:1 notifications for 
years  2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, a nd 2022?  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 50 - 
 
  4  DEFERRED REPLIES  
4.1  MATTERS  RELEVANT TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMITMENTS: ARTICLE  18.6 
4.1.1   Angola's  import policies  (SIM 660)  
4.1.1.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106067 ) 
The EU would like to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID 100058 . 
On 14 January 2019, Angola published Presidential Decree 23/19, i.e., The Regulation of the 
Commercial Chain of Supply of Goods of Basic Basket and Other Priority Goods of National Origin, 
which provides new import rules on 54 products, mainly agricultural goods. This Presidential Decree 
seeks to support domestic production and economic development by restricting importers' access to 
imports, including through an import licensing sys tem that appears to prioritize the use of domestic 
production, similar to an import substitution policy. Given the potential impacts on EU's exports to 
Angola of agricultural products covered by Presidential Decree 23/19, the EU would appreciate if 
Angola could provide clarifications on the following points:  
a. Could Angola provide additional information on the agricultural products covered by the 
scope of Presidential Decree 23/19, including the specific HS codes for each commodity, 
as well as a list of speci fic goods produced in the Special Luanda -Bengo Economic Zone 
that are subject to the Decree?  
b. Could Angola explain how the restrictions are implemented, and notably if licenses are 
used to manage these restrictions?  
c. Could Angola elaborate on the process imp orters and wholesalers have to follow to be 
eligible for an import licence, including on the specific steps required?  
d. Could Angola provide additional clarifications on the quantitative restrictions laid down by 
Article 11 of the Decree, especially on how the assessment of the existence of internal 
capacity for import substitution is conducted?  
Angola previously indicated that cancellation of the Decree will depend on the achievement of its 
objectives.  
e. Could Angola elaborate on the methodo logy and process for the assessment of the 
achievement of those objectives?  
4.1.2   Australia, Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, United Kingdom, 
Unite d States – Restrictions on agricultural and agriculture -related services  (SIM 770)  
4.1.2.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 106132 , 106137 , 106141 , 106145 , 
106149 , 106152 , 106162 , 106166 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
The following restrictive measures have been introduced against the Russian Federation with severe 
negative effects on domestic agricultural production cycle and the global food security:   
a. Prohibitions to provide tech nical assistance, brokering services or other services related to 
certain goods, including agriculture goods, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those 
goods.  
b. Prohibitions to provide financing or financial assistance related to certain goods, inclu ding 
agriculture goods, for any sale, supply, transfer or export of those goods.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 51 - 
 
  c. Prohibitions to provide insurance and reinsurance for any sale, supply, transfer or export 
of those goods.  
d. Application of financial restrictions on Russian Agriculture Bank as sets, as well as 
prohibitions to deal with their assets.  
To our regret, we have to acknowledge that for the most part, these are the developing, including 
net-food-importing developing countries and the least -developed countries, that pay the highest 
price for such restrictive measures.  
Could Australia, Canada, the European Union, Iceland, Norway, Japan, New Zealand, the 
United  Kingdom and the United States, please, clarify how the application of such measures 
contributes to global food security. In particu lar, whether they believe that the observed disruptions 
in the supply chains of goods and services related to the production and distribution of agricultural 
products, including wheat and fertilizers, and increased volatility in the global agricultural mar ket 
should be considered as useful contributions to food security.   
4.1.3   Australia , Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom, United States – Import duties in 
excess of the bound rates applied on agricultural goods (SIM 771)  
4.1.3.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID  106133 , 106138 , 106153 , 106163 , 
106167 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance o f the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
In 2022, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States have 
introduced import tariffs on agricultural products in excess of their bound rat es violating a number 
of their bound rate commitments.  
Such an apparent violation of the WTO commitments contributed to deteriorations in the agricultural 
markets.  
We expect information from mentioned Members about the timing of elimination of the 
inconsis tencies as part of their contributions to world food security and on compliance with tariff 
commitments.  
4.1.4   Canada, European Union, Iceland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway – Prohibitions and 
restrictions on agricultural machinery supplies  (SIM 772)  
4.1.4.1   Question  by Ru ssian Federation (AG -IMS ID 106139 , 106142 , 106146 , 106150 , 
106154 , 106155 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
On 9 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited the sale, supply, transfer or export of goods 
which, according to the Council Re gulation № 833/2014, could contribute to the enhancement of the 
Russian Federations' industrial capacities. Such goods, in particular, include tractors, track -laying 
tractors and road tractors for semi -trailers, etc., which are used in the agricultural sec tor. 
Similar trade restrictions were undertaken by Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014), Norway (Decision 
No. 1076), New Zealand (Regulation SL 2022/74), Canada (Regulation SOR/2014 -58) and Japan 
(Cabinet of Ministers Decision of 7 June 2022 on Measures Concer ning the Situation in Ukraine).  
As one of the major suppliers of agricultural products, including critical foodstuffs and grains, in 
particular wheat, the Russian Federation ensures food security of a large number of countries, 
net‑food importing developin g countries included. However, the trade prohibitions and restrictions 
applied on agricultural machinery including spare parts already now has a negative impact on 
Russia's agricultural output, which, in turn, will progressively contribute to the food cris is and 
jeopardize global food security in the long run.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 52 - 
 
  In this regard, we would like to find out how the application of such measures correlates with the 
declared objective to mitigate the food security concerns.  
4.1.5   China's food aid (SIM 823)  
4.1.5.1   Question  by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106072 ) 
China gave a holding reply to EU question AG -IMS 105031  at the last CoA session due to the need 
to consult the responsible authorities. The EU would like to reiterate the question:  
The WFP reports on China's ongoing cooperation with the World Food Programme to provide food 
assistance to the people of Afghanist an through the Global Development and South -South 
Cooperation Fund" as of 2022.  
For 2023, the contribution from the Government of the People's Republic of China towards its 
emergency response in Afghanistan is supposed to enable WFP to provide life -saving food assistance 
to nearly 70,000 food -insecure people in areas struck by acute food insecurity.  
a. Was this food aid provided since 2022 in cash or in kind?  
b. Is China planning to report this food aid to the WTO in accordance with the applicable 
notification ob ligations?  
4.1.6   Côte d'Ivoire - Tax on imported spirits (SIM 649)  
4.1.6.1   Question by European Union (AG -IMS ID 106076 ) 
The EU wants to r eiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID  96046 . 
Côte d'Iv oire appears to apply a tax of 25% only on imported spirits, under Article 419(3) of the 
Code général des impôts1. This tax discriminates between imported products and local products.  
a. How does Côte d'Ivoire explain that this tax does not restrict imports?  
b. How does it respect the following WTO commitments:  
• Article II:1(b) GATT (Schedules of Concessions);  
• Article III:2, first sentence, GATT (National Treatment on Internal Taxation and 
Regulation).  
4.1.7   European  Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on road freight  transport (SIM 
778)  
4.1.7.1   Question  by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 106143 , 106147 , 106156 ) 
The Russian Federation did no t receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
On 9 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited for any road transport undertaking established 
in the Russian Federation to transport goods by road within the territory of the EU, including in 
transit (Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision 
No. 1076) and Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014).  
Application of such measures only creates impediments for trade and imposes conditions that can 
negatively affect the stability of global agricultural market.  
At the same time, according to the above -mentioned regulations, competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Iceland may authorize the tr ansport of goods by a road transport undertaking 
established in the Russian Federation  if the competent authorities have determined that such 
transport is necessary for the purchase, import or transport of agricultural and food products, G/AG/W/241  
 
- 53 - 
 
  including wheat an d fertilizers whose import, purchase and transport is allowed under the 
Regulation.  
In our view, the above -mentioned provisions of the regulations can be interpreted ambiguously, and 
are inherently discretionary. Such situation can lead to overcompliance, which, in turn, results in 
non-application of the exemptions and de -facto restrictions  in respect of agricultural products.  
In this regard, we would be grateful if the EU, Norway and Iceland could clarify the following:  
a. Can the competent authorities withhold authorizations for the transport of goods by a road 
transport undertaking established in the Russian Federation  even if such transport is 
necessary for the purchase, import or transport of agricultural and food products, including 
whea t and fertilizers, given the wording used in the Regulation?  
b. What is the procedure for obtaining such an authorization? And what regulations govern 
this procedure?  
c. How many authorizations have been issued under this Regulation to date?  
d. Is there an approved  form of such an authorization?  
4.1.8   European Union, Iceland, Norway – Prohibitions on access to ports  (SIM 782)  
4.1.8.1   Question by Russian Federation (AG -IMS ID 106144 , 106148 , 106157 ) 
The Russian Federation did not receive an answer on the substance of the matter, so our question 
still remains valid and we await a response in due course:  
On 16 April 2022, the European Union has prohibited access to ports in the EU territory to any vessel 
registered under the flag of the Russian Federation, as well as to vessels that have changed their 
Russian flag or their registration to the flag or register of any other State after 24 February 2022 
(Council Regulation № 833/2014). Similar measures were adopted by Norway (Decision No. 1076) 
and Iceland (Regulation No 281/2014).  
At the same time, according to the mentioned regulations, competent authorities of the 
EU/Norway/Iceland may authorize a  vessel to access a port under such conditions as they deem 
appropriate, after having determined that the access is necessary for the purchase, import or 
transport of agricultural and food products, including wheat and fertilizers whose import, purchase 
and transport is allowed under the Regulation.  
There is no settled procedure or conditions for obtaining such authorization. There is no form of 
proof of such authorization, and no information on the number of permits issued.  
Such artificial logistical barri ers, as well as non -transparent and ambiguous regulations are 
destabilizing global agricultural markets and have even more severe consequences for the global 
food security. For instance, according to the last estimations of the WTO, fertilizer prices rose 60% 
year-on-year in August. Meanwhile, imposing prohibitions on logistical capabilities of one of the 
major suppliers of fertilizers, will only consolidate this upward trend, which, in turn, will lead to food 
insecurity and debt distress in developing coun tries. 
We expect Members concerned to explain how they are willing to ensure effective elimination of the 
above -mentioned restrictions  in respect of agricultural products. Currently their exemptions to 
regulations are not working.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 54 - 
 
  4.2  POINTS RAISED IN CONNECTI ON WITH INDIVIDUAL NOTIFICATIONS  
4.2.1   IMPORTS UNDER  TARIFF AND OTHER QUOTA COMMITMENTS (TABLE MA:2)  
4.2.1.1   Panama ( G/AG/N/PAN/67 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106087: Question by European Union – Tariff quota fill  
The EU would like to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS 105153  to Panama:  
The European Union thanks Panama for submitting its 2022 calendar year MA:2 notification 
(G/AG/N/PAN/67 ). The European Union notes that several tariff rate quotas covering poultry, dairy 
products, beans and tomatoes have a zero fill  rate. This has been the case for several years in a 
row.  
a. Could Panama explain the specific reasons for the underfill of each of these TRQs?  
b. Could Panama inform the Membership what it is doing to increase utilisation of these 
underfilled tariff quotas as per the Bali Ministerial Decision on Tariff Rate Quota 
Administration? Is Panama considering a change in the method of management of these 
tariff rate quotas?  
The European Union has asked a similar question (AG -IMS ID 101005 ) previously and notes that 
Panama has not provided a response. The European Union woul d appreciate if Panama could take 
this occasion to provide the Membership with a response to both questions.  
4.2.2   DOMESTIC  SUPPORT COMMITMENTS (TABLE DS:1)  
4.2.2.1   Georgia ( G/AG/N/GEO/25 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106042: Question by United States of America, Australia – Transparency 
issues (including Table DS:2)  
As we have not yet received a reply from Georgia to AG -IMS ID 102043 , we would like to repeat the 
question:   
In Georgia's January 2022 Trade Policy Review (TPR) the Secretariat reported that Georgia's Ministry 
of Environmental Protection and Agriculture provided 243.5 million Georgian lari (GEL) in subsidies 
to the agricultural sector in 2020 ( WT/TPR/S/420/Rev.1  page 102).  In Georgia's 2020 Table DS:1 
domestic support notification ( G/AG/N/GEO/25 ) the total notified domestic support was 
GEL 150.9  million.  There also appeared to be other discrepancies noted in the TPR with regards to 
measures that a ppear to have not been included in Georgia's domestic support notifications and a 
lack of required Table DS:2 notifications.  In responses to questions raised by Members, Georgia 
informed Members that it would submit the respective notifications in the firs t half of 2022.  
a. Please provide an update on the status of Georgia submitting revised Table DS:1 
notification to account for noted discrepancies.  
b. Please provide an update on the status of submitting the required Table DS:2 notifications 
for any new or modif ied domestic support measures exempt from reduction commitments.  
4.2.2.2   Georgia  (G/AG/N/GEO/28 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106041 : Question by United States of America, Australia – Transparency 
issues (including Table DS:2)  
As we have not yet received a reply from Georgia to AG-IMS ID 103034 , we would like to repeat t he 
question:   
We remain concerned with some of the information in Georgia's domestic support notifications.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 55 - 
 
  At the September 2022 WTO Committee on Agriculture, the United States asked Georgia a question 
about its 2020 Table DS:1 notification in AG -IMS ID 102043 , which has not been answered. The 
United States is resubmitting the question again, noting that we also have similar concerns with 
Georgia's 2021 DS:1 notification ( G/AG/N/GEO/28 ), and as such, request that Georgia also respond 
with regards to revising both Table DS:1 notifications for 2020 and 2021 to account for the noted 
discrepancies.  
AG-IMS ID 106043: Question by United  States of America, Australia – General services: 
infrastructural services  
As we have not yet received a reply from Georgia to AG -IMS ID 103033 , we would like to repeat the 
question:   
In G/AG/N/GEO/28  for calendar year 2021, Georgia notified in Supporting Table DS:1 the measure 
"Modernization of Amelioration System."  This measure was not notified in Georgia's domestic 
support notifications for calendar years 2017 through 2020, but did appe ar in notifications for 
calendar years 2015 and 2016.  
a. Please confirm whether the measure notified in 2021 is the same as the measure last 
notified in 2016.  
b. If the same, what was the reason for the measure not being notified from 2017 to 2020?  
4.2.2.3   India ( G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/ N/IND/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/25 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/27 , G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/29 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106034: Question  by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Australia , 
Thailand  – Public stockholding for food security purposes  
As we have not yet received a reply fr om India to AG -IMS ID 105046 , we would like to repeat the  
question:   
The Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and 
G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  all contain the same list of names of laws and rules in item 2. d. "Relevant 
laws and regulations." Two of the names on the list are "Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana 
Rules, 2022" and "Integrated Nutrition Support Programme – Saksham Anganwadi and 
Poshan  (2.0), Rules, 2022."   
a. Were these two sets of rules in effect at the time of the implementation of the stockholding 
program covered in G/AG/N/IND/18  (2018 -2019), G/AG/N/IND/25  (2019/2020), and 
G/AG/N/IND/27  (2020 -2021)?  
b. If those rules were not in effect at those times, why were they included in the corrigenda?  
c. How did India's stockholding program change with the implementation of these two sets 
of rules?  
d. Specifically, did the implementation of these two sets of rules require procurement of 
additional quantities of various foodstuffs? If so, please explain.  
AG-IMS ID 106036: Question by United States of America, Paraguay, Australia , Thailand  
– Public stockholding for food security purposes  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105047 , we would like to repeat the  
question:   
In the Annex to G/AG /N/IND/29 , and also in the annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1 , item 2. c., under "Agency in charge of 
implementation" the following entities are listed: the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, 
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Government of India; Food Corporatio n of 
India (FCI); National Agricultural Cooperative Federation of India (NAFED); and State governments 
and their agencies.   G/AG/W/241  
 
- 56 - 
 
  Please provide a list of all state agencies involved in implementation of the program.   
AG-IMS ID 106035: Question by United States of America, Canada, Paraguay, Australia , 
Thailand  – Public stockholding for food security purposes  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105049 , we would like to repeat the 
question:   
Item 2. f. "Officially published objective criteria or guidelines," of the Annexes that appear in 
G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and  G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  
includes three main objectives, but no information on where those objectives might be published. 
Item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr. 1, and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  includes three similar objectives, but also a 
fourth that is not covered in the more recent Annexes: "to maintain stability in foodgrains prices 
throughout the country during  the year".   
a. Please provide the original legal and official document that specifies the identified 
objectives.  
b. Please explain why "to maintain stability in foodgrains prices throughout the country 
during the year" was removed from the objectives.  
AG-IMS ID  106027: Question by United States  of America, Canada, Paraguay, Australia , 
Thailand  – Public stockholding for food security purposes  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105051 , we would like to repeat the 
question:   
Item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/18 , G/AG/N/IND/25 , and G/AG/N/IND/27  
mentions that "Relevant laws and regulations" includes various State legislations/orders. However, 
item 2. d. of the Annexes that appear in G/AG/N/IND/29 , G/AG/N/IND/18/Corr.1 , 
G/AG/N/IND/25/Corr.1 , and G/AG/N/IND/27/Corr.1  does not contain reference to States.   
Please provide a complete list identifying all "State legislations/orders" that are relevant to the 
stockholding program, as well as copies of those documents or specific URLs/weblinks.   
AG-IMS ID 106032 : Question by United States of America, Canada, Australia – 
Non-product -specific AMS  
As we have not yet received a reply from India to AG -IMS ID 105042 , we would like to repeat the 
question:   
 
In Supporting Table DS:9 of G/AG/N/IND/29 , India has provided limited information about the 
insurance premium and interest subsidies extended to various crops or agricultural products, and 
also does not appear to include information on any state -specific measures. For example, it is 
understood the states of Bihar, Punjab, and West Bengal have their own state crop insurance 
programs, which are funded by the states a nd not the central government.   
a. Please confirm what schemes are included under the measure notified as "insurance 
premium subsidy" and provide a breakdown of expenditures for each. For example, does 
"insurance premium subsidy" include the following crop in surance schemes: Pradhan 
Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, Weather Based Crop Insurance Scheme, Unified Package 
Insurance Scheme, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, National Crop Insurance 
Program?  
b. Please confirm what Indian states implement crop insurance sc hemes in addition to or 
separate from the national crop insurance program and provide links to the operational 
guidelines for each.  
c. Please confirm whether the notified value for crop insurance includes these state -level 
measures and if not, why.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 57 - 
 
  d. Please ide ntify what crops or agricultural products are eligible for the national insurance 
premium and interest subsidies.  
e. Please explain why India notifies insurance premiums as non -product specific given that 
at least some of the insurance schemes have varying pr emiums rates for different eligible 
crops. For example, under the National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the premium rate 
for wheat is the lesser of 1.5 % or the actuarial rate, while that for bajra and oilseeds is 
the lesser of 3.5 % or the actuarial rate,  and horticultural crops are the actuarial rate.  
4.2.2.4   Panama ( G/AG/N/PAN/66 ) 
AG-IMS ID 106025 : Question by Thailand – Scheduled commitment level  
Thailand would like to reiterate its previous question AG -IMS ID  105157 . 
Thailand thanks Panama for its submission of DS:1 n otification. Thailand noticed that Panama 
notified the Product -Specific Support for rice at PAB 61.47 million in 2022, which is accounted for 
22.29% of the VOP. Thailand also took note from the notification that this support was to maintain 
the sustainabil ity of rice production during the COVID -19 pandemic and the Black Sea conflict.  
Please indicate what steps for Panama to implement the rice support scheme to comply with the 
WTO commitment.  
AG-IMS ID 106047: Question by United  States of America, Australia – Scheduled 
commitment level  
As we have not yet received a reply from Panama to AG -IMS ID 105156 , we would like to repeat 
the question:   
With regard to notification G/AG/N/PAN/66 , Panama has reported being above its authorized 
de minimis  levels by PAB 61.4 million, equivalent to 22 % of the value of production for rice in 
Panama. Since 2017, Panama has consistently reported being above its authorized de minimis  levels 
at levels above 20 % of the value of production, with a spike of up to 33 % of the value of production 
in 2020.   
Althoug h the current notification represents 22 % of the value of production, in absolute monetary 
terms, it also represents an increase of PAB 20 million since the first time Panama reported subsidies 
above its authorized levels, at PAB 41 million, which at the t ime represented 24 % of the value of 
production. The market price support incentive increases production and the value of production, 
which is why, despite the increase in subsidies in absolute terms, we have a situation where there 
is a reduction in relati ve terms. It is worrying to see the continuation of this trend in Panama's 
agricultural policies, which has been ongoing and on the rise for more than five years now.   
While we appreciate Panama's commitment to transparency in the reporting of the subsidie s granted, 
can Panama indicate what actions it is considering to reduce rice subsidies, with a view to complying 
with its WTO commitments?   
5  EXPORT COMPETITION  
5.1  Australia  
AG-IMS ID 106062 : Question by United States of America  
The United States notes a reduc tion of Export Finance Australia (EFA) export programs for 
agricultural products year -over-year. In 2022, Australia notified no support for agricultural 
products.   
Please explain what changes (e.g., regulatory changes, changes in fees/premiums, etc.) have 
contributed to the reduction in EFA export programs for agricultural products.  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 58 - 
 
  5.2  Brazil  
AG-IMS ID 106064 : Question by United States of America  
Since 2018, there has been a substantial reduction in utilization of Brazil's PROEX direct financing 
export progra ms for agricultural products.  In 2022, PROEX provided USD 1.6 million in support for 
agricultural products vs. USD 61.9 million notified in 2018.   
a. Please explain the reason for the reduction, including any programmatic changes 
(e.g.,  regulatory changes, ch anges in fees/premiums, etc.) that have contributed to this.   
b. Please provide the annual average premium rates/fees per program from years 2018 
to 2022.  
5.3  European Union  
AG-IMS ID 106065 : Question by United States of America  
It is reported in a recent media article that the Ministry of Agriculture indicated that Casa de Comert 
Unirea, a Romanian state -owned company, is preparing a deal with Egypt where it seeks to export 
grains in exchange for fertilizers.  Further, it is reported that the Ministry of Agricult ure announced a 
major change regarding the operation and duties of the Casa de Comert Unirea in the relationship 
with [Romanian] agricultural producers.  
(For reference, see:  https://www.romania -insider.com/ro -grain-fertilizers -eal-egypt -aug-
2023#:~:text=Casa% 20de%20Comert%20Unirea%2C%20a,to%20the%20minister%20of%20agr
iculture .) 
a. Please explain the operational and duty changes of Casa de Comert Unirea.  
b. Please describe the role of Casa de Comert Unirea prior to the changes.  
5.4  New Zealand  
AG-IMS ID 106002 : Question by Chile, Canada  
In the context of Export Competition and the 105th CoA meeting, Chile would like to bring attention 
to the following documents - G/AG/W/125/Rev.18/Add.4  about State Trade Enterpri se and New 
Zealand Zespri's notification on STE ( G/STR/N/19/NZL ). Chile  would like to refer to the contents of 
the aforementioned documents, which highlights  Zespri's impressive performance in terms of 
exported quantity, export value growth and expor t medium price over the years. Particularly, we 
can observe a steady growth in export quantity, from 353.2 thousand tonnes in the 2010 -2011 
season to 616.9 thousand tonnes in the 2021 -2022 season. Additionally, the export medium value 
has shown gradual gro wth, from NZD 0.9 thousand million in the 2010 -2011 season to 
NZD 2.7 thousand million in  2021-2022 season. The export medium price follows the same trend,  
although with fluctuations over the years.  
Considering the above, Chile would like to present the  following questions:  
a. What strategies and measures,  implemented by Zespri  have contributed  to its successful 
performance, beyond its automatic right to  export kiwi fruit?  
b. Chile would like to obtain information about the mains markets that Zespri targeted for 
export last season,  in terms of relative share by value and quantity?  
5.5  Norway  
AG-IMS ID 106091 : Question by European Union  
Norway – ECQ – Food Aid  
The EU would like to reiterate its pervious question AG -IMS 105086  to Norway:  G/AG/W/241  
 
- 59 - 
 
  It is not clear from Norway's reply to the ECQ whether in 2022 it has provided food aid in either cash 
or in-kind form; Can Norway provide the relevant data?  
5.6  United States of America  
AG-IMS ID 106111: Question by European Union  
US – ECQ – Food Aid  
In reply to the previous EU question AG -IMS ID 105092 concerning the monetization of food aid, the 
US has informed that only a limited amount of food aid is monetised.  
Can the US provide the information in percentage terms of monetised US food aid in relation to all 
food aid granted?  
 
 
__________